APPENDIX 4 Local Authority consultation meeting with the Governors of Strand on the Green Junior School: held at the School on Friday 8 th January 2016 at 8.30 am Present: Confidential Representing the Director of Children’s and Adults’ Services: Confidential Correspondent: Confidential 1. Apologies for Absence Confidential 2. LA Proposal regarding amalgamation of the Infant and Junior schools SP, Ms G and Ms P were welcomed to the school. Introductions were made and SP outlined the procedure for the meeting: she would present the LA’s amalgamation proposal followed by Governors’ questions and the opportunity for them to raise any concerns and express views. She explained that Mr O O from HR was unable to attend the meeting, therefore any HR queries that could not be answered by the officers present would be followed up after the meeting and responses circulated via e-mail to all. SP gave background to the proposed amalgamation, referring to the 2007 Borough Policy of Linked Infant and Junior Schools Amalgamations, and that the resignation of the Headteacher of Strand on the Green Infant and Nursery School had triggered the LA’s action to instigate the proposed amalgamation process. She reported that the consultation period would run until 26 th February and acknowledged the importance of hearing the school’s views. All would be able to provide feedback and views to the Local Authority throughout the consultation period, not just at the meeting. Proposal to amalgamate Strand on the Green Infant and Nursery and Strand on the Green Junior Schools – Presentation of slides - SP SP talked through each slide set out below. Slide 1. The proposal • Establish a new community primary school (with nursery) from amalgamation of existing schools. This means the existing schools close, and a new school opens. The new school would: Open in January 2017 Be the same size as current schools (3FE, 90 places a year for Reception onwards) • All pupils at either school in December 2016 would automatically be part of the new school. Slide 2. Benefits of a primary school (1) • Parents only apply to one school for Reception to Year 6 (no reapplying for Year 3).
Transcript
APPENDIX 4
Local Authority consultation meeting with the Governors of Strand on the Green Junior School:
held at the School on Friday 8th January 2016 at 8.30 am Present: Confidential Representing the Director of Children’s and Adults’ Services: Confidential Correspondent: Confidential 1. Apologies for Absence Confidential 2. LA Proposal regarding amalgamation of the Infant and Junior schools
SP, Ms G and Ms P were welcomed to the school. Introductions were made and SP outlined the procedure for the meeting: she would present the LA’s amalgamation proposal followed by Governors’ questions and the opportunity for them to raise any concerns and express views. She explained that Mr O O from HR was unable to attend the meeting, therefore any HR queries that could not be answered by the officers present would be followed up after the meeting and responses circulated via e-mail to all. SP gave background to the proposed amalgamation, referring to the 2007 Borough Policy of Linked Infant and Junior Schools Amalgamations, and that the resignation of the Headteacher of Strand on the Green Infant and Nursery School had triggered the LA’s action to instigate the proposed amalgamation process. She reported that the consultation period would run until 26th February and acknowledged the importance of hearing the school’s views. All would be able to provide feedback and views to the Local Authority throughout the consultation period, not just at the meeting. Proposal to amalgamate Strand on the Green Infant and Nursery and Strand on the Green Junior Schools – Presentation of slides - SP SP talked through each slide set out below. Slide 1. The proposal • Establish a new community primary school (with nursery) from amalgamation of
existing schools. This means the existing schools close, and a new school opens. The new school would: Open in January 2017 Be the same size as current schools (3FE, 90 places a year for Reception
onwards) • All pupils at either school in December 2016 would automatically be part of the new
school. Slide 2. Benefits of a primary school (1) • Parents only apply to one school for Reception to Year 6 (no reapplying for Year 3).
APPENDIX 4
• Transition of pupils between Years 2 and 3 is smoother and better for pupils and their families, with less chance of ‘lost learning’ at the beginning of Year 3.
• One school, Governing Body, and Headteacher provides clear accountability. Slide 3. Benefits of a primary school (2) • A single and continuous approach to the curriculum, such as single policies for
handwriting, reading, maths and behaviour. • Strengthened tracking of pupil learning and assessment. • More opportunities for staff professional development and knowledge sharing. • A greater proportion of the budget available for teaching and learning.
Slide 4. Implications of amalgamation (1) • Pupils:
All students due to be on roll at either existing school in January 2017 would automatically become part of the new primary school.
• Staff: Temporary Governing Body would be responsible for the appointment of the new
primary school Headteacher. New primary school would have the same number of students as the existing
schools, so would need a very similar teaching structure. Slide 5. Implications of amalgamation (2) • Governance:
a new Temporary Governing Body (with membership representing both current governing bodies) is set up to lead on the establishment of the new school;
both current governing bodies are disbanded when the current schools close; a permanent Governing Body for the new school is established once the new
school is open. • Admissions:
The new school would be a community school and so have the same admissions criteria as the current Infant School.
Slide 6. Proposed process and timeframes
Process = close both existing schools and open a new primary school Action Timeframe Public consultation on amalgamation proposal 8 January – 26 February 2016 Council decision about whether to publish Statutory Notices 26 April 2016 If published, Statutory Notice available for comment 13 May 2016 Establish Temporary Governing Body Summer Term 2016 School Adjudicator decision on amalgamation proposal Summer 2016 Existing schools close 31 December 2016 New Primary School opens 1 January 2017 Slide 7. Discussion / Q&A / Comments Please respond to the consultation: • Complete the online questionnaire
(www.hounslow.gov.uk/consultations) • Complete the paper questionnaire and send to:
School Organisation Officer, Children’s & Adults’ Services, London Borough of Hounslow, Civic Centre, Lampton Road, Hounslow, TW3 4DN Consultation ends on 26 February 2016
The following comments and questions emerged during and following the presentation: - The proposed amalgamation would mean closing the two schools and opening as a new primary. SP clarified that the LA would not have to go to competition and she reported that the Schools Adjudicator would take the final decision if the process progressed to the formal stage. - The LA’s view of the benefits of amalgamation had been outlined. - Ms G talked briefly about the proposed arrangement ensuring consistency from Reception to Year 6, referring to handwriting and behaviour policies and in view of the new national curriculum. She also mentioned that schools are now working with different assessment systems. - Copies of budgets for the two schools and a model budget for an amalgamated 3FE school were circulated to all Governors. SP explained the figures for the first two years if the amalgamation were to go ahead. It was noted that each school receives a fixed lump sum of £110k, therefore the budget for a primary school would result in the reduction of one of the fixed lump sums. In the first year 85% of the combined lump sums would be protected, which would result in a reduction of £33k, and a further reduction in the second year of £77k meaning a £110k reduction overall.
- It was noted that, should the process move to the next stage, a temporary Governing Body would be established with equal representation of Governors from both schools. - It was noted that school admission criteria would remain the same. - Proposed process and time frames. SP confirmed the procedure for the informal consultation process: individual letters and views feed into the Cabinet Report. Formal minutes of meetings will be attached. Individual responses are available for members to view. Governors were invited to comment, express their views and to ask any questions. Questions 1 to 3 referred to the wording of statements in the presentation:
Q1: I am concerned that the statement referring to ‘lost learning at the beginning of Year 3’ is
misleading to parents/carers; they are currently fully informed about their children’s progress and learning is accelerated. I am concerned that the statement in Slide 2: ‘One school, Governing Body, and Headteacher provides clear accountability’, is misleading as it is already the case in each school. SP responded, as indicated at the top of the slide, that the statement was intended to mean across both schools, however Mrs H replied that it did not explicitly say this on the slide and so could be misleading to parents. Ms G advised that if transition is strong this needs to be recorded, as this would be an influence on the consultation.
Q2: I am concerned that Point 2 of this slide citing ‘strengthened tracking of pupil learning and assessment’ as a benefit to amalgamating the two schools implies that the current assessment procedures in the Junior School are weak and that parents/carers viewing this at the meeting on 18th January could find it misleading. In response, CP drew on her own experience as Chair of Governors at Bedfont School, which has been amalgamated, and reported that strengthened tracking and assessment was viewed as a positive point by the Head Teacher there. LA colleagues agreed to
APPENDIX 4
emphasise at future consultation meetings that this bullet referred to strengthened tracking and assessment across key stages. As discussion progressed, GC suggested that strengthened assessment might actually be a reference to the matter of value added, a national issue for junior schools. She talked about ways this could be addressed other than amalgamation, ie through robust moderation procedures or the introduction of externally marked tests at KS1 as proposed by the Secretary of State for Education. She also commented that recently, Junior schools have had marginally higher attainment levels than all through Primaries, perhaps because they have to work so hard to show value added. She added that, educationally, separate schools might be better as both have to work very hard for their separate statutory end points. The Headteacher commented that the Local Authority might need to address the issues relating to value added through a more thorough moderation process at KS1. GC also commented that the transition from Infant to Junior is well managed with a number of different events taking place to ensure pupils feel comfortable moving into the Junior School.
Q3: I am concerned that Point Three in the second slide of the presentation stating that there
would be ‘more opportunities for staff professional development and knowledge sharing’ implies that not enough professional development was currently provided for staff in school and could also be misleading to parents/carers who view this information at the meeting on 18th January. Ms G clarified that this was about broader opportunities that exist in a primary school across key stages. SP agreed to ensure this point was made clear at future consultation meetings.
Q4: How will the school manage a reduction of £110k in the first two years? SP suggested that there would be a saving through only one headteacher salary and there would be potential savings through economies of scale – Service Level Agreements for legal, insurance and IT providers were given as examples. However, the Headteacher responded that penalty clauses for early termination of contracts might be incurred as the schools don’t buy in the same services. The Vice-Chair of the Finance, Pay and Staffing Committee reported that the Junior School has very thorough benchmarking procedures and he thought it unlikely that significant savings would be made in this area. The school disagreed with the budget statement in the consultation document as they felt it was misleading. SP agreed to share the view that governors felt the budget was insufficient to meet the staffing structure that would be needed.
Q5: I am concerned that the LA presentation does not mention that both schools would lose their current Ofsted status (Good with Outstanding features for Junior School and Outstanding for the Infant and Nursery School) if the proposed amalgamation takes place. SP responded that she would ensure that the points made about Ofsted judgements would be included when presenting to parents.
Q6: I am concerned that if parents/carers do not attend the consultation meeting on Monday 18th January, they only have the consultation document to refer to, it does not provide them with a balanced argument. This was noted, although SP acknowledged that the school had taken the opportunity to present alternative views to parents and the school community through their e-petition.
Q7: What research has been undertaken by the LA with regard to amalgamation of separate Infant and Junior Schools?
APPENDIX 4
SP responded that they looked at the experiences of schools that have been amalgamated in Hounslow over the years.
Q8: How will amalgamation improve CPD and career opportunities if there is a duplication of
roles? I am concerned that some talented teachers would have fewer opportunities for professional development than now, particularly in subject leadership. In response, Ms G suggested that there would still be Phase Leaders at KS1 and KS2 and there would be specific training for staff involved with Early Years, KS1 and KS2. Ms W added that contrary to other schools in and around London, Strand does not have difficulties recruiting and retaining staff and expressed the view that having separate schools provided more opportunities for staff involvement and development. The School provided a statistic that in the past 15 years only one member of staff had left the school to further their career elsewhere. The Chair added that currently there are two very committed and dedicated people leading the schools and merging them would mean losing at least one of these high quality leaders; she expressed her concern about this.
Q9: What would be the immediate benefits of amalgamation for parents of a child in either school? Wouldn’t the process take a great deal of the Senior Leadership Team’s time merging the separate schools as well as establishing the Swan Centre, leaving little time to focus on the children in school? SP responded that it would mean that Year 2 parents wouldn’t have to reapply for a place in the Junior School. Ms G added that not having to move from one school to another at the end of KS1 would be a benefit. The Chair of the GB responded that for vulnerable children it is very useful to have practised the transition to a new school at this stage, helping to reduce the fear of transition, in preparation for the move to secondary school and that it is ‘a rite of passage’. One of the Parent Governors said that her children had found it ‘exciting’ to be moving from the Infant to the Junior school. SP commented that the SEN Swan Centre was a positive reason for amalgamating the two schools. Mr L responded that there is still a long way to go before the Centre is fully integrated and this is another reason why amalgamation would not be good for the schools. Ms G reiterated that it is council policy to consider amalgamating schools when one of the Headteachers leaves.
Q10: Are the existing buildings suitable for amalgamation and shouldn’t the LA have done a feasibility study earlier in the process to look at the cost of adapting the buildings? SP reported that any work on site feasibility wouldn’t usually be undertaken at this point in the process as it is still at the ‘informal consultation’ stage.
Q11: If building work was required to adapt the site for amalgamation, how would the costs be funded? SP said that some previously amalgamated schools had received funding for building adaptations, however not recent amalgamation. At the moment no budget has been allocated.
Q12: If there were redundancy payments, in particular for the Junior Headteacher as a consequence of the amalgamation, who would pay for them? SP thought it would be the LA but agreed to check and confirm.
Q13: We (Headteacher and Chair) find it difficult to understand why the LA would consider
amalgamation and are concerned that amalgamating the schools would mean losing the strong bond between families and staff that currently exists in both schools. We are concerned that members of staff who currently travel long distances to work at the
APPENDIX 4
Junior School because of the caring ethos would look for employment opportunities closer to home. SP again reminded the governors that in this instance the resignation of the Infant headteacher was the trigger for instigating the conversation, and she referred to the Council policy of 2007. She also advised that subsequent Cabinet Reports made clear that there did not in fact need to be any qualifying criteria to instigate a conversion about amalgamation.
Q14: I am concerned that because of the additional work involved with the proposed
amalgamation, staff members and Governors have not been able to fully address other important issues, including work on the School Development Plan. SP responded that she understood, but the policy made clear that a conversation needed to take place on amalgamation.
Q15: I am concerned that the proposal hasn’t been tailored to the Strand on the Green Schools and colleagues in the LA have not undertaken sufficient research about the two schools and how closely they already work together, before proposing amalgamation. SP again referred to the consultation document and reminded governors that this was the informal stage and that a decision had not been taken. In their deliberations the Cabinet members will take account of all stakeholder views and will need to consider whether the concerns raised outweigh the benefits or if any of the issues can be overcome. She again acknowledged the comments and concerns made about the generic nature of the presentation, but reported that the LA has to set out the benefits of amalgamation as they see them.
Q16: Can it be made clear to parents/carers at the meeting on 18th January that the consultation document is generic? SP acknowledged that this can be clarified.
Q17: How does the LA take into account the comments and feedback?
SP confirmed the procedure for collecting feedback, which included formal minutes of all of the scheduled meetings with parents, staff and governors at the Infant and Junior schools. She reiterated that Governors can send in any further views/feedback by filling in the form on the back of the consultation document and via e-mail. Council Members will meet at the Cabinet Meeting on 26th April to consider the report, which will make recommendations about whether to proceed to the next stage or to stop the process. If a decision is made to proceed to the next stage, a statutory notice would be produced inviting further comment. All information is gathered after this stage and provided to the Schools Adjudicator. This part can take up to 8 weeks from the end of the statutory period. SP added that the Schools Adjudicator can decide to meet with all parties if there are particular points they would wish to clarify. An example was given of a recent amalgamation when this happened. Previous adjudications have considered changes to the suggested start date. She confirmed that the Schools Adjudicator is only involved if the Cabinet agrees for the proposal to go ahead.
Q18: I am concerned that after having been provided with the views of Governors and Parents/Carers, the Council will proceed with amalgamation and in this case, I will not be prepared to take part in the Temporary Governing Body. SP acknowledged that this point demonstrates the strength of Governors’ views.
Q19: What criteria in the policy is being used to initiate the proposal to amalgamate? SP reported on qualifications added to the original policy and that changes were made in
APPENDIX 4
2008 and 2010 in relation to the delegation authority and qualifying criteria used. Once again the Council Policy of 2007 and qualifications were raised. SP again referred to the criteria relating to the vacancy of the Headship in the Infant School. Governors responded by objecting to the LA spending tax payers’ money and “launching an assault” which disrupted the two schools.
Q20: Has research about size of schools been undertaken by the LA? I am concerned that the
new school would be too big and senior leaders would not know every child. SP advised that there were a number of Hounslow headteachers in 3-form entry and bigger primary schools who would say that it is possible and they do know every child in their school. In her response, SP referred to research undertaken by the National College for School Leaders as well as the LA’s School Expansion Programme and the Education Improvement Partnership, which recognised that a four form entry school is a ‘reasonable size’. Mr T left the meeting at this point. Ms C reported on a review of school size research by the OECD relating to an optimum school size for primary which Strand already fits. She made reference to a similar review conducted by Dublin University which also indicated that larger numbers don’t equate to better attainment.
Ms C agreed to provide SP a link for further information about this piece of research.
Q21: What are the implications for support and office staff if there is duplication of roles?
SP said that any staffing changes would need to be considered by the Temporary Governing Body and Headteacher. The LA was not suggesting that the new school would need to make immediate changes to senior leadership or admin arrangements, but may through ‘natural wastage’ achieve a different staffing structure over a period of time. Governors again expressed serious concern about the financial implications of amalgamating the schools. They were concerned that the reduction in funding of £110k would mean the budget was insufficient to maintain the current staffing structures. Governors were advised to include all concerns in their consultation feedback. Mr T returned to the meeting at this point.
Q22: Will the signatures gathered via e-petition before the informal consultation opened be
accepted? SP confirmed that they would, provided the petition is submitted within the consultation period.
All present were reminded to respond during the consultation period and that the Cabinet will meet on 26th April when the decision about whether to proceed to the next stage is made. All noted that it is a public meeting. All were thanked for attending the meeting. Meeting closed: 10.14 am.
APPENDIX 4
Strand on the Green Junior School Staff Consultation Meeting
At a meeting held in the Hall at the School on
Thursday 14 January 2016 at 4.00 p.m. Present: Representing London Borough of Hounslow: Confidential Staff present: Confidential Apologies received from: Confidential Correspondent: Confidential
Before the meeting began, introductions were made. 1. Presentation by SP SP gave a presentation and slides were displayed to all present. She gave the background and advised that this was not a judgement on the Infant and Junior schools; it was a generic presentation based on a policy agreed by Members which asserted that the advantages of amalgamation outweigh disadvantages. A consultation on amalgamation could be triggered by a headteacher leaving – in this case, the Infant school headteacher. The consultation was an opportunity for the Local Authority (LA) to hear comments from the school community. The proposal was to close the Infant and Junior schools and establish one new Primary school.
a) The proposal:
To open January 2017 (to give sufficient time for agreement of the Schools Adjudicator) as a community primary school (with nursery), with 3 forms of entry of 90 places for Reception onwards.
All pupils at the two separate schools in December 2016 would automatically be part of the new school.
b) Benefits of a primary school (1):
All through Reception to Year 6 (no reapplying for Year 3).
Transition between Years 2 & 3 would be smoother and better for pupils and their families, with less chance of “lost learning” at the beginning of Year 3.
One school, one Governing Body and one Headteacher to provide clear accountability for the Primary phase.
A question had been raised – would staff know all pupils in a primary school: This was about management systems. It was now recognised that 3 form entry was not considered
APPENDIX 4
to be too big, and that 4 form entry primary schools were considered acceptable by Hounslow’s Education Improvement Partnership (EIP).
c) Benefits of a primary school (2):
A consistent approach to policies and the curriculum.
Strengthening the tracking of pupil learning and assessment, particularly across the key stages.
More opportunities for professional development and increase in career progression.
A greater proportion of the budget being available for teaching and learning, with economies of scale from having only one provider.
d) Implications of amalgamation (1):
Pupils would all be automatically on roll.
The new primary school would have the same number of children as the existing school, so would need a very similar teaching structure.
Both schools would lose their OfSTED categories, as any new school would not have an OfSTED rating.
With a new school, there would be 3 years before an OfSTED visit. e) Implications of amalgamation (2):
Governance:
If Members decided to progress to the next stage of the consultation process, at that point a Temporary Governing Body would be formed – its composition would be made up of an equal balance of governors from both schools.
The Temporary Governing Body would be responsible for the appointment of the new primary school Headteacher.
It would operate alongside the two existing governing bodies until the new primary school opened, at which point the permanent Governing Body would be established for the new school.
Admissions:
There would be no change to admissions arrangements; the new school would have the same criteria as the current Infant school.
f) Proposed process and timescale:
This was one of several planned information meetings for both schools.
The current informal consultation phase was a public consultation on the amalgamation proposal, with an end date of 26th February 2016.
During this stage, meetings are held with both schools. Responses are encouraged and need to be received by 26th February.
All responses/comments will be gathered for a report to Cabinet on 26th April 2016, with all meeting minutes included, and a decision would then be made. The report would not identify individuals in the responses.
The Cabinet will have three options: to stop the process; consider a variation to the proposal; or to recommend moving to the next formal stage, when Statutory Notices would be published, available for comment from 13th May 2016.
The formal consultation stage is the point when a Temporary Governing Body would be formed.
The Schools Adjudicator’s decision on the amalgamation proposal would be during the Summer Term 2016, which could include a visit and calling a meeting with stakeholders. The Schools Adjudicator’s decision would be binding on the LA and the schools.
The most likely opening date would be 1st January 2017, with the two schools closing on 31st December 2016.
APPENDIX 4
2. Questions and Comments Q1: Concerns had been raised about vulnerable children – from experience as a parent, adopted children attending a 3 form entry school found each transition difficult. How would the transition be managed for vulnerable children and what plans were in place to help these children and their families? There would be a change period and the amalgamation transition period would be very difficult; some children would find even the change of name difficult. Transition was managed very well here. Staff comment: 98% parents responding to the recent questionnaire had felt there was a good transition. There were good procedures in place and good communication with the Infant School. It was felt that the generic statement gave the implication that transition was not managed well – the children’s books demonstrated that this was not the case. A: The assertion was that members felt that the advantages of a primary school outweigh the disadvantages of separate infant and junior schools. It was acknowledged that the two schools had experienced staff, and some of the concerns about transition could be allayed by the staff through reassuring the children. Q2: The LA could have prevented any upset by not consulting, because neither school wanted this. A: Whilst it is recognised that the circumstances of both Strand schools may be different to other amalgamation consultations, the LA is not in a position to ignore a discussion on amalgamation because we have a policy to follow, in this case triggered by Infant school headteacher’s resignation. Q3: There was a very longstanding staff cohort here and I personally chose Strand because of its leadership. How would vulnerable children be provided for with new or a change of staff? There had been a huge amount of support from both Headteachers – I do not see how a primary Headteacher would be able to provide this level of support and therefore I am worried as an adult about the vulnerable children. Had there been other amalgamations of a similar size? A: Amalgamations varied: some were the same size, some expanded to become 3 form entry. The structure did not have to change overnight, other than the loss of a Headteacher post, but clearly leadership would be critical to the new school. Q4: It was felt that amalgamation was presented as a ‘fait accompli’, with no disadvantages given. I found the information too generic. A: The LA considered that there were more advantages than disadvantages and officers were here to present this. It was acknowledged the school had concerns regarding the generic nature of the presentation and agreed this would be fed back. The process being followed was not different to other amalgamations – what was said at this meeting would be recorded. Q5: There was no guarantee that the new Headteacher would have the same ethos or philosophy, nor the new leadership team. The current Junior Headteacher may not be appointed. The schools had volunteered to have the Swan Centre set up. A concern was the retention of staff; many were staying because of the culture, etc. All of this was leaving the schools vulnerable to staff leaving. Children come back to visit their previous teacher/s. Staff were now feeling vulnerable. The main concern was the way amalgamation was presented to staff and to parents. Where was the foundation for advantages from amalgamation – was there a case study or statistics behind it?
APPENDIX 4
A: SP referred to research presented by the National College for School Leadership (NCSL) on leadership in large primary schools and there was information from School Improvement colleagues. However, the LA was hearing from the meeting that aspects were different for the Strand schools. Mrs G added that nationally, there were more Outstanding or Good 3 form entry schools than there were Requires Improvement 3FE schools. There was no disadvantage in attainment in these for KS1 to KS2. Q6: Staff were aware that the benefits were presented to parents, but were concerned that parents may see these as gospel. A: There was a parents’ meeting arranged for 18th January and parents would be able to comment and feedback. The school was also providing parents with a document that sought to counter the LA position. Staff Comment: Of the amalgamated Hounslow schools over the last 15 years, Chatsworth Junior was outstanding and following amalgamation the primary school was judged Good, therefore one school had lost its outstanding designation. A: We’re not comparing like-for-like outcomes with the rapid changes in the OfSTED framework. Staff Comment: Parents did not look at this. Data in Hounslow showed that there was only one amalgamated school that was outstanding – parents would not understand the different framework and therefore the outcomes. It was important to acknowledge this. Q7: Professional development was currently good. A: The suggestion was not that the two schools did not have good CPD, but that there could be more opportunities across the two Key Stages or for subject areas. Q8: Was this meant to be individualistic? A: It could be about developing, for example a Year 1 teacher wanting to work in Year 4. Q9: There were concerns that the SLT knew staff very well personally and professionally and were able to offer CPD – how would the new Headteacher and leadership team be able to help? A: This was assuming there would be a Headteacher new to the school. Q10: I have 6 years’ teaching here, beginning as an NQT and now being Head of Year 6. The current Headteacher was highly regarded in Hounslow and I make a daily 60 mile round trip to get here – a number of staff would not stay if the current Headteacher was not appointed. How would this be guaranteed to the children and staff? A: Governors had also expressed this concern, so the LA was aware, however this had not presented a problem with previous amalgamations. Staff comment: We have anecdotal information to the contrary. A: SP said to please share this information that you have with LA officers. Q11: A lot of peers at college were leaving the profession; I do not see how the Headteacher and one Deputy Headteacher could manage. A: It was for the Temporary Governing Body to set the senior leadership structure with the new Headteacher. The school’s budget was driven by pupil numbers and each school receives a fixed lump sum of £110,000. Combining the two school budgets would mean a reduction of one fixed lump sum of £110,000 with 85% of that protected the first year, so a loss of £33,000 for the first year, and the remaining £77,000 would be lost in the second year. However, the new school would not need to fund two Headteacher salaries. With regard to the staffing structure, SP gave an example of different models, one of which could be an Executive Headteacher with Heads of School for the Junior and Infant phases.
APPENDIX 4
Q12: What was the point, then? A: SP clarified that she was responding to the question about “one deputy” and that, subject to decisions made by the school, there could be two deputies. With the saving of one headteacher’s salary and economies of scale, it should be possible. Q13: There would not be economies of scale because there was a need to integrate e.g. telephone systems at £30,000 and potentially there could be penalties if changing providers/contracts, although there would be the same number of pupils. A: There are 3FE schools with a headteacher, deputies and assistant headteachers. One option could be to have deputy headteachers across curriculum areas, which could be tailored; there could be a Deputy Headteacher for Teaching & Learning across the new school. There were various structures for 3 form entry with the same funding. Q14: Why bother with the route of possible models; the school was hoping amalgamation would not happen. I cannot see any immediate benefit to any child in the schools now; maybe in 5 years’ time. A: It was not just about now, but beyond – perhaps there were not many benefits now, but there should not be dis-benefits to the current children. Staff comment: There was a serious recruitment crisis nationally – to replace the skills, talent and knowledge of the current crack team would be almost impossible. Q15: Concerns were raised that meetings were taking place and going forward with this proposal to parents, although it was not accurate to the two schools and the disadvantages were not advised. A: The LA were asserting the benefits as set out above. Q16: Therefore, was the LA saying that the Council would not pay any attention to the schools’ views? A: The idea behind the meetings was to obtain feedback by capturing comments and take this back to the Cabinet for consideration. Most recent amalgamations proceeded to Statutory Notice; one did not. The same formal process was followed for each proposed amalgamation. In the one case, a Single Member Decision was taken not to proceed. Staff comment: This decision was not in the public record/domain. Q17: Was it seen as working with the schools or against them? Was there an obligation to use the same PowerPoint presentation at all meetings even though OfSTED was omitted from the slides? A: The LA needs to be consistent and is saying there are enough reasons to ask the question. Officers have been given a mandate. Yes, we want to work with schools but cannot disregard the policy. People who may not be able to attend meetings are able to submit points of view. Q18: We don’t just blindly follow policy – do you? A: SP explained that this follows a statutory process for every LA – this stage was to be followed, as had been set out in the presentation. The Cabinet ultimately owned the policy and delegated the process to officers to consult and feedback. There will be an officer group that will formulate a response. Q19: Would officers present make a recommendation? Is it impartial? A: Officers could not change policy as they were not the owner, but were responsible for implementing policy. The purpose of the meeting was to gather views after the
APPENDIX 4
presentation was given and take these back to the Cabinet. It was important to hear views. Officers do have to challenge the views presented by the various parties. Q20: In light of the responses from the Governing Body and here tonight, at what point could it stop? A: The process as outlined would have to be followed. Q21: What if the Infant School did not want amalgamation either? A: It must still be considered by Cabinet. Q22: Could not a mini consultation have been conducted? A: The process was as a result of one or other Headteacher leaving and was subject to the statutory process. Q23: I understand that officers present were not the architect of policy and were following procedure, but I would like to ask the LA what the vision for education was. It seemed to be about school size and that big was better. School place planning rationalisation was driving this. Strand Juniors were not able to offer a single additional place, so this was essentially creating another supersize school, well above the national size of 260 pupils, and was unpopular with parents. This was a Tesco model of schooling – stack high and sell. To apply policies without looking at research as it unfolded, to apply it generically – there was frustration here. There was already one day a year when the governing bodies from both schools met; there was already a common Handwriting Policy; and staff met regularly. There was a lot of evidence that consistency was harder to achieve in a larger school. Staff comment: I came from a large primary school previously, where there were a number of issues from the sheer size of the school, putting pupil progress on the back burner, e.g. managing the number of staff, which was often fire fighting to get someone in the classroom – i.e. reacting. This Junior-only school had an incredible cohesiveness, leadership support, and there was nowhere for children to hide. I feel that I was more effective here as a classroom teacher rather than as Deputy Headteacher at my previous school. Q24: How would it be possible to have 730 children under one school? A: It was not uncommon for primary schools to have models where children did not regularly meet together as a whole group. Q25: In order for amalgamation to work, it needed to be cohesive – the schools did not have this infrastructure now. Staff would not be able to meet together A: There were restrictions within the building, but it was about looking at different ways of managing this. There may be a fusion of where the children were housed, perhaps assemblies across key stages; the infrastructure had to be made. There were assumptions being made about worst case scenarios, but it was about consolidating the best of both schools, which may assist in retaining good staff. Q26: I cannot see what would benefit the children. A: There was no evidence that the children would not be benefitted – why would it change? Q27: Not all parents would come to the arranged meeting to hear that currents benefits such as transition arrangements were already in place. Parents not coming to the meeting may see an issue where there is not one.
APPENDIX 4
A: It was known that the schools were sharing information with parents. It was understood a petition was in place, which would be presenting the schools’ viewpoints. Staff were asked to respond to the consultation and to include any evidence, which would be reported to members. Q28: Was it possible to put the staff point of view to the 18th January parents meeting? A: Parent Governors could attend. Staff comment: There was an amalgamated school where there was a precedent for advantages and disadvantages being set out at staff and parent meetings. Q29: There was a good deal of evidence on the disadvantages of amalgamation. An amalgamated school would mean all being together; however, it would not be possible for all the children to play together. Where would the Headteacher sit? A: Bringing the children together was logistical – a lot of through primaries had separate playgrounds. There would be opportunities for pupils to see each other. KS1 and KS2 children were not usually in the same playground, which would be overwhelming for the younger children, but there could be mentoring and other opportunities for the children to get together. Staff comment: The schools already did this. Q30: With 700+ children, how would staff cope in the school office? A: This concern was noted. Q31: I do not see why the suitability of the buildings was not relevant – this was 1 of the 3 trigger points. A: At this stage of consultation, there were no overwhelming reasons why this building and this number of children could not operate as one school. Similar buildings to this had not prevented amalgamation. In terms of the actual building, there has been funding to address some issues, but this would need to go to Cabinet Members. We need to understand implications at this informal stage. Q32: Where would funding come from? The school budget? A: It would be considered by members and a decision would be taken, but it was not a case of asking the school to provide capital. Q33: We do not want the amalgamation and we don’t want to have to spend more money. A: This concern had been picked up from the Governor minutes. Q34: What about the Swan Centre? There had been a huge input from the SLT and there were concerns that attention would be taken away from the Swan Centre, thus disadvantaging the children. A: This was something the Temporary Governing Body, representative of both schools, would need to discuss with the new Headteacher. Q35: There was a lack of time to prioritise with the amalgamation of the two schools and everything would change. A: With previous amalgamations there had not been much change initially – some changes were achieved through ‘natural wastage’ and through commonality of policies. Q36: I feel that officers were saying nothing was changing and all staff would stay, yet staff were saying it would change – staff felt insecure for their career and did not feel they were being heard.
APPENDIX 4
A: It had to go through the process; officers were asking to share information and for responses to be captured, as was happening here. Staff comment: It was suggested for any future amalgamations, that officers came into a school for a week and see for themselves how it will affect staff – we will have to pick up the pieces. With actual evidence, officers could then decide if this would be beneficial to staff and children. Staff comment: In my previous school, there was a big staff turnover – here teachers stayed. Staff comment: Pupils also came back; the school was creating a legacy. I was a former pupil myself. I had worked in an amalgamated school – staff morale was bad, staff did not know all the children’s names. Here, there were good community links and happy children. When an opportunity came up here, I had applied and stayed despite the outer London pay scale. If the schools were amalgamated, I would have to leave. A: We are here to capture your comments. There would be more opportunity to comment as the consultation was ongoing to 26th February. Q37: I had attended a conference on improving health and wellbeing of Hounslow children. If the schools amalgamated, this school would lose £8,000 Sports Premium. How would this benefit the children? A: It would be helpful if this information could be provided in an e-mail. Q38: Consultation would end in May – how would this affect staff with “resignation day” being in May? A: The new school would open in January 2017, so staff could decide in the following term. Staff comment: Resigning in the Autumn term would not be good for children as there would be no consistency. Staff comment: January was a really difficult time of year to recruit. A: There was a need to also discuss this with the Infant School, currently with an interim leadership. There was always the possibility that the Schools Adjudicator may wish to change the planned date. Q39: Transition was going to be hard for vulnerable children and the assumption was that staff would stay. Recruitment was impossible in London. Staff comment: The longer this went on, the longer the Infant School would be without a Headteacher. Q40: Has the Council undertaken any research on local developments? There was a potential shift that more disadvantaged children would be looking for places here. I will provide evidence that disadvantaged children performed less well in bigger schools. There was a reference to a place planning document setting a 600 pupil limit. Affluent parents were looking at the independent sector. A: In the Chiswick planning area, planning permissions were known up to 2030, and certain factors such as parental preference impact on school places. Staff comment: There were additional concerns the group wished to raise. A: These should be made through the consultation process, which would finish on 26th February.
APPENDIX 4
Closing comments: Staff could still submit comments/evidence through consultation response forms (link to document was on the Hounslow website) or by email. All comments would be taken into account. Minutes would be made available. All were asked to complete the attendance sheet to record in the minutes.
The meeting closed at 5.42 p.m.
APPENDIX 4
Strand on the Green Junior School Parent Consultation Meeting
At a meeting held in the Hall at the School on
Monday 18 January 2016 at 6.30 p.m. Present Representing London Borough of Hounslow: Confidential Parents Present: 68 Parents and 1 LA Governor Confidential Correspondent: Confidential Throughout these minutes “Q.” represents questions or comments raised by parents. At the start of the meeting introductions were made by RW, Headteacher/Deputy Headteacher and Parent. Signing-in sheets were circulated for all present to sign. 1. Presentation by SP SP asked that questions and comments be saved for after the slide presentation, which would last approx. 15 minutes. However questions and comments were raised during the slide presentation and are recorded in these minutes. SP explained the background behind the Local Authority (LA) proposal to amalgamate the Strand on the Green schools. The Council has a policy agreed by Members that states when a headteacher of linked infant and junior schools leaves, the LA will seek views about whether to amalgamate. This consultation was triggered by the resignation of the Infant school headteacher. During the presentation the LA would be asserting the positive benefits of an all-through primary school; this was not intended to be a judgement on the current infant and junior schools. The slide presentation was set out as follows:
Slide 1. The proposal • Establish a new community primary school (with nursery) from amalgamation of existing schools. This
means the existing schools close, and a new school opens. The new school would: Open in January 2017 Be the same size as current schools (3FE, 90 places a year for Reception onwards)
• All pupils at either school in December 2016 would automatically be part of the new school.
Slide 2. Benefits of a primary school (1)
APPENDIX 4
• Parents only apply to one school for Reception to Year 6 (no reapplying for Year 3). • Transition of pupils between Years 2 and 3 is smoother and better for pupils and their families, with
less chance of ‘lost learning’ at the beginning of Year 3. • One school, Governing Body, and Headteacher provides clear accountability.
Slide 3. Benefits of a primary school (2)
• A single and continuous approach to the curriculum, such as single policies for handwriting, reading, maths and behaviour.
• Strengthened tracking of pupil learning and assessment. • More opportunities for staff professional development and knowledge sharing. • A greater proportion of the budget available for teaching and learning.
Slide 4. Implications of amalgamation (1)
• Pupils: All students due to be on roll at either existing school in January 2017 would automatically become part of the new primary school.
• Staff: Temporary Governing Body would be responsible for the appointment of the new primary school
Headteacher. New primary school would have the same number of students as the existing schools, so would
need a very similar teaching structure.
Slide 5. Implications of amalgamation (2) • Governance:
a new Temporary Governing Body (with membership representing both current governing bodies) is set up to lead on the establishment of the new school;
both current governing bodies are disbanded when the current schools close; a permanent Governing Body for the new school is established once the new school is open.
• Admissions: The new school would be a community school and so have the same admissions criteria as the current Infant School.
Slide 6. Proposed process and timeframes
Process = close both existing schools and open a new primary school
Action Timeframe Public consultation on amalgamation proposal 8 January – 26 February 2016 Council decision about whether to publish Statutory Notices 26 April 2016 If published, Statutory Notice available for comment 13 May 2016 Establish Temporary Governing Body Summer Term 2016 School Adjudicator decision on amalgamation proposal Summer 2016 Existing schools close 31 December 2016 New Primary School opens 1 January 2017
Slide 7. Discussion / Q&A / Comments
Please respond to the consultation:
• Complete the online questionnaire (www.hounslow.gov.uk/consultations)
• Complete the paper questionnaire and send to: School Organisation Officer, Children’s & Adults’ Services, London Borough of Hounslow, Civic Centre, Lampton Road, Hounslow, TW3 4DN Consultation ends on 26 February 2016
The following comments and questions arose during the presentation: Re. Slide 1: SP explained that the Policy had been established in 2007. The proposal at this stage would be to close the two schools and open a primary school. Once proposing, the process falls under the School Organisation Maintained Schools guidance regulations.
If the process were to progress beyond the formal consultation stage, the two schools would close and one new primary school would open. The two schools would close 31st December 2016 and all children on roll would be automatically enrolled in the new school. There was no question any child would not get a school place. The LA must specify an opening date for the new school and have suggested January 2017. The Schools Adjudicator would expect a reasonable amount of time, hence Jan 2017; September 2016 would be too soon. The proposed new primary school would be the same size, i.e. 3 forms of entry (90 places per year group). Re. Slides 2/3: When presenting the slides showing the benefits of a primary school, SP again stressed that this should not be taken as a reflection on the current infant or junior schools. She talked through the benefits of an all-through primary school.
There was an advantage that parents would not have to re-apply for Y3, which for some can be an anxious time;
Regarding transition Y2 to Y3 there were often concerns around ‘lost learning’ in separate infant and junior schools, i.e. sometimes children repeat in Y3 what they learned in Y2;
One Headteacher and one Governing Body provides clear accountability for the Primary Phase;
Single School Development Plan – one approach across two schools, across teaching and learning.
Consistency across key stages through whole-school policies – a continuous approach.
Strengthened tracking of pupil learning and assessment across key stages. Mrs G added that this was about having a clear tracking system in place. There is no national assessment system, all schools are able to implement their own assessment systems which correlates with the national curriculum. SP said this may not be a specific problem at these schools, but in general regarding assessment of children at transition, it was quite common at infant and junior schools.
There would be greater opportunities for Staff Development, both individual and whole team
All-through schools find it easier to recruit and retain staff due to the increased career progression possibilities that exist in larger primaries with a more varied structure.
The opportunity to establish and develop pupil and parent relationship with the school over a longer period of time.
More effective and efficient deployment of resources which would not be possible in a smaller establishment.
A greater proportion of the budget would be available for teaching and learning. SP explained that each school’s budget is driven by pupil numbers; the funding formula was applicable to all schools. If both schools combined, the total pupil numbers would drive the budget. In addition to the pupil numbers formula, each Hounslow school has a fixed lump sum of £110k, so the loss to the primary school would be one school’s fixed lump sum. This was the same budget that all 3FE schools would have. However, in the first year of amalgamation there would be 85% protection, so £33k of one fixed lump sum would be lost the first year, and then in the second year a further £77k would be lost. So the total budget for the new school at the end of the second year would be the combined pupil numbers funding formula and one fixed lump sum of £110k.
APPENDIX 4
At the moment, the two schools are maybe paying separate costs for HR, Legal, clerking, etc., so there is an element of efficiency savings and the element of one less Headteacher salary if this proposal goes ahead.
Q. How is it a greater proportion? Q. It’s a smaller pie but same size slice – it’s disingenuous. A. You would not have one Headteacher’s salary and there would be economies of scale, so for example, not two sets of contracts for each school. Q. Have you quantified this? A. SP began to answer but was interrupted by a further question to clarify “for this school”. A. The point of this presentation is to inform what the LA is asserting. We have given a model 3FE-school budget to both schools, and they can respond to us. Q. So you have not looked at benefits for our schools. Mr O requested that SP should be allowed to finish the slide presentation. Re. Slides 4/5: SP explained that if the process went to the next stage a Temporary Governing Body would be set up and they would be responsible for the appointment of the new school’s Headteacher. Hounslow’s Governing Bodies Support would ensure equal representation of the Infant and Junior school governors. The existing schools’ governing bodies would carry on through to December 2016. This was the process nationally. The same number of students would be on site so same number of class teachers would be needed. It would be for the Headteacher and the Temporary Governing Body to determine what the Senior Leadership structure of the new school should look like. There would be no change to admissions arrangements. Re. Slide 6: SP set out the timeframes for each stage of the process. The current stage was the public consultation phase, where the LA was asserting benefits and having discussions with the school community. This was the opportunity for parents, staff and governors to feedback comments. The LA had met with the Junior school governors and staff, and the Infant school meetings would start next week. The consultation was open until 26th February. There was a form at the back of the consultation document for completing, and minutes were taken of all meetings. All minutes would be produced and feedback collated, and then a Cabinet Report would be produced for Cabinet Members. Cabinet will then take one of three decisions. Q. Who creates the report? A. LA officers – Council staff. Q. We won’t be consulted on that document? A. No, but the responses from the informal stage will be included. They will be attached to the Cabinet Report. Minutes will be the same as governing body minutes minuted by clerk. You may or may not agree with the content, but the process is structured. We will not quote names, but all responses will be seen by Members. The report will capture the points people have raised – staff, parents and governors.
APPENDIX 4
The Cabinet Report will come with a recommendation: either not to go ahead; or to proceed with changes; or to proceed to the formal stage of the process.
If the decision is to proceed, then Statutory Notices would be produced on 13th May, published in a newspaper and on the Council website, and displayed on the gates of the school. There is a legal process we are required to follow. If it goes to the next stage, then the Temporary Governing Body would be set up. The main role of the Temporary Governing Body is about the appointment of the Headteacher. Q. This sounds like a “fait accompli”. What happens if it does not go ahead? A. It could go ahead but with changes, and in this case the changes would be fairly minor, e.g. the start date. If the decision is to halt the process, then that is the end of it – both schools would carry on. Q. In that case, if another Headteacher should resign in future, do we have to go through this again? Q. A parent who was also the current Chair of Governors made the following points. There are three parts of the 2007 policy where it states that the Chief Exec agreed to consult if the following criteria are met:
1. That there is a vacancy in the headship of one of the schools; 2. That the site(s) can be effectively managed as one school; 3. That the buildings can be adapted to meet the needs of an amalgamated school at
an acceptable cost. A. SP responded, as you will recall at the LA meeting with Governors, it was explained that revisions were made by Cabinet to the 2007 policy in 2008 and 2010, where changes to the criteria for amalgamation were made, and Members resolved that qualifying criteria would not be required for initial informal consultation to take place. Q. But that’s not a policy. A. We can take this point to Members – they may wish to look at policy. However, as explained, the consultation is not limited to these circumstances, but in this case consultation was triggered by the resignation of the infant school headteacher. Q. That’s not the policy that was sent to us – I’ve not been provided with a copy. A parent at this point interrupted and instructed SP to “move on from this slide”. Closing slide: Parents were advised of their opportunity to send responses by email or to send paper responses, and they were reminded that they had until 26th February. There would be another meeting for parents at the Infant school. 2. Questions and Comments Q1. As we are a community school and you see the performance data for the schools, I did not expect to hear, as you say, a generic policy and generic recommendations. What is it you, in your department, what is your specific recommendation for these two schools? A. The Policy is not specific to these schools. The LA believes there is enough evidence the advantages of amalgamation will in most cases outweigh the disadvantages. Q2. How would it benefit our children?
APPENDIX 4
Q3. A parent quoted from a Hounslow 2010 document “no amount should exceed 600 pupils”. Including the Swan Centre and Nursery, this makes 729. The Borough has an opportunity to stop this. The policy was superseded, which we have not seen. A. The Schools Education Improvement Partnership (EIP) has since come forward with a review of principles which agreed that it is acceptable to have a primary school up to 4FE, or possibly larger. This was in the context of future planning of primary school places, such as school expansions. Q4. Will you categorically state that we will stay as 3 forms of entry? A. SP replied, yes. Q5. We would have 651 full time children. A. The Swan Centre does not count toward numbers. To clarify – I’m not saying the Swan Centre children don’t count, but they are under separate funding. Q6. Who is accountable for the Swan Centre? A. The schools jointly, but it is funded from a separate source. Q7. It’s the Headteacher who is accountable for the Swan Centre, and the new Headteacher would be responsible for the Nursery and the Swan Centre. A. In relation to large schools, Hounslow has a successful 5FE linked infant and junior schools which are moving to 7FE. Q9. Your policy (parent was referring to Place Planning Strategy 2010-2020) states the ideal number of children for a school; so to throw in the funding argument is facetious. A. The LA is presenting its case in the way it sees fit. It will be the role of the Schools Adjudicator to pick up on any mistakes. Officers will put forward your comments. Hounslow’s Place Planning Strategy 2010-2020 is a strategy, not a policy. Since the strategy written, a lot has changed. Q10. Is it policy to follow policy except where not policy? A. The 2015-2020 school expansion programme is the current strategy and does not set a limit on forms of entry. All LA’s are working in a climate of growth and it would be unusual for any policy to limit capacity. However, as previously stated, the proposed primary school would continue as 3FE. Q11. There are 1FE schools in Hounslow. A. Yes, there are a few, but these are mainly church (Voluntary Aided) schools, and we need to move away from 1FE schools as they’re not financially viable. Q12. I did not see disadvantages presented. A. That is because the LA is asserting the benefits of amalgamation over separate infant and junior schools. Q13. Therefore, if making responses is left to parents, governors and staff, what would Members need to hear in order for this not to go through, for example 100% opposed, i.e. there are two sides to the argument? A. Each case is different. We will need to present the level of view and response from both schools. Q14. So these are “perceived” advantages. A. Mr O asserted that the reason for having this consultation was to get the views of the school community, but it will be up to Members to decide. He assured parents that their views would be passed on. Q15. How many previous amalgamation decisions went against?
APPENDIX 4
A. One. Q16. That was a Single Member Decision. A. A Single Member Decision is a Cabinet decision. Q17. What were the criteria for that one decision? A. That decision was based around the logistics of the site. Q18. Do we have a mountain to climb? A. In terms of strength of view, it is stronger than we have heard before. The policy is what it is. Q19. We need information on how we present our argument. Q20. How many have gone through and the outcomes? A. SP said that officers had looked back over 15 years; she began to give examples, for instance where one was Good and another Requires Improvement. Q21. These are two great schools. A. Please bring that point forward for Members to hear. Q22. Regarding benefits, I am a parent of 3 children and cannot see any benefits to the children. The transition Y2-Y3 is exceptionally well managed. It is made a big deal about moving to big school, with BBQs and shows – children feel proud to take part. And it’s an advantage when they go on to secondary school. This is the only school in the area that does preparation for secondary transfer – unique to this school. You would be breaking something that is already fixed. Q23. Ask the Y6 students who are due to move on whether transition has helped them. Ask them how it helps their development. Has anyone looked at that? The school collects data at transition. For the record 98% of parents were delighted with the Y2 to Y3 transition process. Q24. This is not a proposal – it’s not well set out. We are being asked to defend ourselves. I want to know what criteria Members will base their decision on. When this goes to statutory notice, I want to see evidence of demand, clear objectives, the effect on other schools, and long term value for money. A. It’s fine to comment. Please look at websites and see what other Local Authorities do. Q25. What about evidence of need – where will children all get together? A. Most 3FE primary schools don’t have one place for all. Q26. We would like to hear from the School Improvement Adviser – you should have looked at data, specifically why these need to improve and how this would work. A. Mrs G said that there were currently two schools – one Outstanding and one Good with outstanding features. At KS2 Level 4B and 4B+ were above national in 2014 and there were improvements in 2015, there are areas where there have been decreases, particularly L5 and more able. When leaving infant school the percentage across Reading, Writing and Maths is around 90%. At the end of KS1 children are in the highest quintile, but when leaving junior school these are in the 2nd quintile. What can we learn from the infant school? More Able pupils at KS2 are an issue. Q27. The Chair of Governors made the point that in the past children were thought to be doing well at L5, but the expectation now is to achieve L6; so grade boundaries changed between 2014 and 2015. Community schools have children with a variety of backgrounds.
APPENDIX 4
If you analyse further the results for our school, this was based on a couple of children who were suffering from hardships (i.e. traveling from a long distance). This school is not just about results. A. Mrs G replied saying that the results were analysed regarding specific needs and that these were taken into account. Q28. Regarding levels, there is research that with an all-through primary school there is suppression of KS1 data, because they want good progression – research shows this. In this school we have children striving at Year 2 then striving again at the end of Year 6; so we have two points of excellence instead of one. Q29. One third of last year’s Year 6 were not part of the infant school. There followed an exchange of discussion around baseline assessments. Mrs G said that at the end of key stages, we were no longer looking at baseline. Q. Are you saying it is insignificant? A. No, because you are still gaining information through baselining and using a continuous approach. It is important to understand each child’s starting point to measure the progress made from the baseline assessment through to the end of year 6. Q30. There is no lost learning in this school in Year 3. A. Mrs G said that the presentation was generic, but there is a case when children transfer from Y2 to Y3 – what we should see is for the progress not to only show at the end of Key Stage, it should be continuous. Ofsted are now looking at School Improvement on a forward trajectory. Q31. We are striving to get to top of game at each Key Stage. A. This should be at every year group – progress in each year group. Q32. You said about incremental drop in Y6. Are we therefore saying to the Junior school “pull your socks up”? What do you think are specific changes that would improve with one Governing Body and one Headteacher? A. It’s not about individual silos; it’s about children’s progress across the whole school. Q33. We are all mass believers in community education. There is a big concern that the school will now become less community based. We choose to put our kids here. I merge businesses for a living, so I know that there’s a risk to the infant and junior schools. A. SP replied saying that there was already a risk with the Infant Headteacher leaving, because there is not a substantive Headteacher in that role. Q34. It is insulting that you don’t know about our succession planning. A. We do know. School leaders have spoken to us. SP clarified the meaning of “substantive”, i.e. in post; the normal position of employment. Q35. HR should know about the great talent in this school. There is always staff turnover with amalgamation and problems attracting new staff. Q36. There is a recruiting crisis in London. The Infant school has an acting Headteacher – the Deputy Headteacher, who the LA is threatening and undermining. If the resignation date is 31st October, how would you get a Headteacher by January? Q37. You say now that capacity would not increase. A. There is no way on this existing site that you could expand. Q38. If you put both schools together, you would have more square meters, e.g. one office for staff. The borough is short 7FE of space because we can’t keep up [with increasing pupil numbers].
APPENDIX 4
A. SP explained that, as Head of Place Planning for the Borough, she could be very clear in saying that it is not on the cards. A. Mr O said that in terms of staffing and leadership there was good leadership in both schools, but we don’t know what will happen tomorrow. In process of change there would be temporary upheaval. But we should also consider parents who have yet to have children. The Primary school is about those children that we also need to consider. The idea is to get views, and diverse opinions are welcome. Q39. One voice should tell you something. If you had 64 views around this room, but we have one single view. So the indication is that the school is doing a good job and we believe in the school right now. The proposal does not have one valid point. A. Mr O clarified that, in terms of diversity, he meant that the more points raised and views submitted, the better. SP explained that the LA thinks it is possible to have a primary school that builds on the good and outstanding features of both existing schools and that these schools can do this. Q40. There would be no cash benefits. A. As a 3 form entry school, the funding formula would support the structure as for other 3 form entry schools. Q41. But right now, it’s a net loss. Q42. I was expecting selling of the policy but have not heard an argument to persuade. What about amalgamated schools in last 12 years – I thought you would be able to produce evidence. Q43. For example KS1 and KS2 results to show that the children will at least stay on track and if not get better. A. SP said that there was data available on amalgamated schools, however her understanding had been that she’d been asked not to compare the Strand schools to other schools. Q44. Mr O mentioned temporary upheaval; how can this be if there are no perceived disadvantages? A. For the longer term we could cite more benefits, but for existing children there would be no disbenefits. Q45. Request for the minute-taker to record that disadvantages were not presented. A. SP replied that the school has been clear about disadvantages, however from the LA’s perspective, it was about how the consultation works under legislation – if we asserted both sides then there would be no point. Q46. You need to make an informed presentation. Q47. In the Chatsworth consultation minutes there were both sides presented, and there were cushions then. Q48. We are grappling in the dark with a vague Council. A. We can’t undo the process. Q49. I have children in both schools. If you present data to the Infant school, please sell it at the Infant parents meeting. A. SP said she was not here to sell it. Q50. Bring the data on the 26th to the Infant School Parents meeting. A. We will need to share the information with both schools.
APPENDIX 4
Q51. I’m disturbed; the process is upsetting and my youngest son is yet to join. I’m the local vicar and know many of the pre-schoolers. My youngest son would have a different experience to his brother and sister. It feels like one school, so geographically it would be the same anyway. The process is horrible and upsetting, so people get riled and protest. People will move out of the area – this is a massive problem. With one Good and one Outstanding school, it’s not worth it. At this point a rude comment was made to LA officers. A. You have up until 26th February. We will include all points raised. Q52. If the schools amalgamated, there would be £110k less, eight teachers said they would resign and they will be hard to replace. Q53. If we lost the Infant Deputy Head it would be a great loss. You have not convinced me. I was agnostic, but now I feel strongly. Q54. I worked in an amalgamated school. In the first year of amalgamation 11 staff left; in the second year 5 or 6 left. How can you stop this from happening? A. This would be about the leadership of the new school when they are appointed; what is decided collectively. Q55. Another problem is recruiting a Headteacher – a “super-head” to work across both schools. A. That would be a decision for the Temporary Governing Body. Q56. What was the experience of other schools in recruiting a Headteacher? A. Mr O said that the scenario was slightly different. In terms of process, the Temporary Governing Body would determine if ring-fenced to the existing Headteacher. LA has clarified the current Headteacher should be internally ring-fenced for interview. Q57. Regarding SP response to the question about teacher’s leaving, clarify the jobs of the Headteacher and the Temporary Governing Body. Q58. If 11 teachers go, it is because the LA has misunderstood, not due to the new school’s Headteacher. A. Mr O explained that the amalgamation process is not one where redundancies are carried out. Q59. But we’ve given you an example of the two good schools who had stable staffing and now lost their staff. Q60. Have any Hounslow amalgamated schools kept all of their staff? A. SP said that this information was not available to hand, but the LA will seek to provide information on this to both schools. Q61. You cannot guarantee this. We do not currently have a turnover of staff. If any new staff were needed it would be due to the amalgamation. Q62. Everyone is very proud of this school. We really care. The Ofsted ratings are Good and Outstanding – what will happen and what is the impact? A. The two categories would cease to exist, and unless there were exceptional circumstances, there would not be an inspection until the third year of the new school. Q63. Has there been a drop in applications? A. SP confirmed that there had not been a drop in applications.
APPENDIX 4
Q64. The previously amalgamated schools were in different local communities. What about a similar socio-economic group? A. There were none from the local area. Q65. What about the time and resources just invested by the Senior Management Team into the Swan Centre? It’s immoral and disruptive to children. The children in the Centre will be affected. Q66. We love our community. It’s important about choice of school, but once the judgements go, people may be concerned about the wellbeing of children. People locally will go and people will come in from different boroughs. Q67. Regarding staffing and no forced redundancies, you said one Headteacher, one Deputy Headteacher and one Assistant Headteacher. By implication there will be people without positions. A. SP clarified that she had said “only one Headteacher”, not one Deputy, etc. The Temporary Governing Body would decide how the Senior Leadership Team would be structured – it could be one Headteacher and two Deputies, or other combinations of senior leadership structure. The only absolute known is the one senior person. Q68. Re budget, there would be a saving from only having one Headteacher. A. It’s not about savings. The staffing would be up to the Headteacher and Temporary Governing Body; it’s not a redundancy process. Q69. So you’re saying it’s not a financial issue; it’s about policy, transition – generic reasons. A. These are features of amalgamated schools. SP asked if there were consistent policies across both schools. Q70. Parents replied to say, yes there were. Q71. If all generic issues turn out to be facetious, would you still go ahead and make recommendation? A. SP said that as officers, we will sit to formulate a report. We will look at all of the things said in the minutes and all of the responses. There will need to be a discussion. We’ve not been in this situation before, so we cannot tell you at this stage. Q72. But a recommendation is made, so you have to have an idea. A. After this meeting, the LA still has three meetings with the Infant school. Q73. What if there are 100% responses against? A. We have to report all of the information coming back. There is currently a small level of support, but responses are overwhelmingly opposed. Q74. The teachers and Governing Body have come back unanimously. A. Yes, however the LA cannot disregard the process. Q75. None of us can see one single advantage; it’s so black and white; not one advantage for five years of disruption. Q76. The last 10 days have been stressful. A: We are asking for your comments – we cannot make a judgement now. Q77. Where is the policy? A. SP said it was on Council website, but she could send a link to the policies and decisions. Q78. Regarding statutory notices – what is the legislation?
APPENDIX 4
A. School Organisation guidance for Maintained Schools, but you need to be clear of the routes you are looking at – “Establishment of a new school”. Q79. With overwhelming negative response, what do you have to do – what course not to proceed? A. SP explained that it was not up to her. We want to present your responses as to why you feel this proposal does not apply to this school, such as KS1 and KS2 transition. SP asked if EAL was a problem for the completion of admissions forms. All responded, no. Q80. Some people could not attend tonight. Some parents cannot pronounce ‘amalgamation’ or access documents. We are a community doing this. Q81. Regarding our petition etc, what weight is put on our responses? A. In terms of officers, we will include collective responses, individual replies and will present the strength of response. Officers would also suggest that Members may wish to review the linked school policy following feedback from the schools. SP explained that she honestly could not say what would happen when officers meet to review responses. Q82. We don’t know how much weight. A. We will feed this back. Q83. A parent said that she would put in a Freedom of Information request. A. SP said it can take up to 20 days for an FOI reply. Q84. Are the advantages you’ve put forward the only ones to be included? A. We can’t present anything different now, but we will include what’s been said in the minutes. You should respond to the bullets in the consultation document. Q85. Who sits on the Cabinet? A. Councillors. Q86. More information and clarification is needed. A. SP explained that the decision was not hers, but senior officers would make recommendations. Q87. I want it minuted that answers are sought regarding data, costings, and plans to recruit a Headteacher. Q88. There has been a lot of resentment due to the policy, and I acknowledge this isn’t your fault, but I’m concerned about people not applying due to amalgamation. A. There is no evidence to suggest this has had any impact on the current admissions application numbers. Q89. We need fresh information about outcomes for Y3; we do not have dip between Y2 and Y3 dip – is that is exceptional? You are not giving parents proper information; parents are having to find all this. You are saying there are no perceived disadvantages. A. We are saying that advantages outweigh disadvantages. Q90. Do you accept that it’s unfair not to have presented a balanced view? Q91. A parent asked Mr O : As an HR representative, if have not dealt with this school before, the real strength of this school comes from a feeling of community, with the
APPENDIX 4
teachers coming in at 7am – it’s truly exceptional. Are you not concerned about teachers not staying here? A. Mr O said that he hoped that if the amalgamation did go through, teachers will consider the children. We have heard that some teachers may leave, but historical evidence does not suggest this. Q92. But I gave you an example. A. We take your view about eight members of staff indicating they will leave, and that is what we need to take back. Q93. Take your reasoned opinion and think about how exceptional it is. A. Mr O said that he would not want parents to think this is a “done deal”. Whatever information that is provided by the school community will be duly considered. The key thing is to indicate why this would not work for you. Q94. Teachers leaving and no change management. Q95. A parent described how the Headteacher knew the name of every child in school. The parent had sat in transition meetings where the teachers at the end of the session knew all of the children’s names of the Y2 children coming up. Regarding Y6 results, what about the children who won’t feel special because the Headteacher won’t know their name? A. SP said that the majority of 3FE headteachers in Hounslow will tell you that they know their children’s names. There is evidence from the National College of School Leadership that also says it is possible. Q96. The Headteacher of this school knows the names of the Nursery children. Q97. People think it’s a done deal. I would like us to find a way out of it – this is heading in a bad direction. A. We can’t get out of the timeline and statutory process. Q98. This requires more effort. If this was an informed group, you would get a better response. Give us something to work with. A. You have made that point, which we will feed back. Q99. We have not submitted responses yet because we wanted to hear your evidence; we did not come in with pre-conceived ideas. Q100. This was triggered by the resignation of the Infant School Headteacher. If the Council had come here and heard the strength of opinion, they would go look for broken schools elsewhere. A. Unfortunately, rightly or wrongly, that’s what the policy states. Q101. Even looking from outside, not as a parent, one would look to where a school needs fixing – not here. A. Mr O stressed the importance of getting the views of parents, governors and staff, and then based on what is heard, to decide do we go forward or stop? SP explained that because the LA was going through the process with another pair of schools, it would not be right to say the process is done there but not here. We can feed back your points about the policy needing strengthening and clarifying. Q102. I have concern over the decision making process – a lack of control. A. This point can be fed back, but it is the LA’s process.
APPENDIX 4
Q103. I’m concerned about the visibility of the decision making process. To clarify, you go to them (councillors) and say we (the LA) think it’s a good idea because of budget, etc. So, if speculating 95% are against, will there be dilution of information going to councillors? A. There will be representation. Q104. Representation, for example a governor rep can sit on the panel? A. No. There is a Cabinet Report that is considered by Members. We look at minutes, responses; we feed back to the Lead Member and the Leader of the Council for consideration. We then collectively form a response/view about this recommendation or that recommendation. At that point we draft a report. The draft goes to the Corporate Leadership Team for them to contribute or change, so there are stages of the report. Then the report will be presented to Members Briefing by the Lead Member. Q105. Do we see the report? A. The report is a public document and is published in advance of the meeting and the decision. Q106. What if everyone objected to the draft report? A. There’s not an opportunity for the public to comment on the draft report, however you do have Member representation on your Governing Body. Q107. Prior to that, we want to make sure our comments are considered. A. At the end of the consultation, that is the end of your input. Q108. So then it goes to the Cabinet Briefing? A. The report is written in the name of the Lead Member of Education. He takes it to the group. They collectively agree or disagree. At that point it goes to Cabinet in its final format. You can go into the meeting, but you won’t be able to comment. Most discussion is at Cabinet group. Q109. So if there are 10-12 people in the Cabinet group, what if it’s a split vote? A. If it were 50/50, SP was unsure but thought that the Lead Member may have the casting vote. Q110. Or 9-1, would Lead Member be able to make the final decision? A. SP was unsure, and she added that the Report starts its journey at the beginning of March. Q111. We must ensure everyone responds; it must have weight. Q112. This is not our only opportunity – do we have a right to challenge the decision? Q113. Do we have a right to appeal? A. No, it would go on to the Schools Adjudicator – that person will be given all of the responses – we send everything. SP went on to explain that all documentation has to go to the Schools Adjudicator. She gave an example of a where the adjudicator came back and talked to groups from each school, with representative governors and the LA. The Adjudicator would be very clear what they want to know. The January start date had been set because the LA was aware it could take a long time for the Adjudicator to take a decision. The Adjudicator ultimately takes the final decision. Q114. Regarding costings, the amount of money that would be lost, systems etc; it would actually take extra money to start up new contracts. Also, if the one school doesn’t have a suitable office or hall, how would this affect office staff and other staff? A. There is nothing in the budget that would prevent this from working. The only salary not being paid for is one headteacher; the budget covers the other posts. As an example, the
APPENDIX 4
school may want to eventually change admin/bursar arrangements – in our experience that would be looked at when there is a resignation. Q115. Where would the Headteacher meet with all staff? Have you done a site evaluation study? A. The schools are in the main very similar to Alexandra Primary School; it would be up to the SLT to decide how it would work. Mrs G added that there could be a communal point for an all-staff meeting if the current staff room doesn’t have capacity. Q116. Using that example, the Caretaker would have to put out chairs. We have two different IT and registration systems; it would cost tens of thousands of pounds to merge IT systems. Who would pay for this? A. It would come out of the £77k that is protected in the first year. Q117. We are using that money for the recruitment drive. A. Do you mean if the process is not ring-fenced to the current headteacher? Q118. Or if the Temporary Governing Body does not hire. Q119. Regarding staff learning from each other, with our separate building structure this probably won’t happen. A. It’s not the only way to develop; there could be subject mixing. Q120. Regarding the report, we are very dependent on the content of the report presented at the end of the consultation. Any data used must be qualified with the staff here. A. We won’t share anything that has not been shared with the schools. Q121. For example, 2015 data, we know the story behind this. What about intangibles such as inclusion; feeling; all pupils being looked after – will you come into inspect books? A. SP replied to say, no, this was the informal stage of the consultation. At this stage it would be about the responses, what we have heard. No LA would do that, not just Hounslow. We appreciate your point of view. We are aware at a certain level that would not be a good use of rate payers’ money. However, we would not put forward something that had not already been put forward. SP suggested talking to the officers that represented other amalgamations. Q122. Please minute that the school has an open-door policy that any LA rep is welcome to visit here – especially with transition, we have historical records of pupils, those who need extra help; everything is open and transparent. A. Mrs G said that data she had referred to earlier was taken from an advisers meeting at the school. Q123. Please minute that regarding the key advantages listed, in all aspects we do not believe there is evidence to support these would specifically benefit the Strand schools. Parents gave examples of good practice such as smooth transition arrangements, where there is no dip; already operating from one site, e.g. one caretaker; common inset days. And if there were any problems that needed addressing, this could be done without proceeding with the amalgamation. Copy of minutes would go to Cllr Bruce. The minute taker was asked by parents to record that the children were not in favour of the amalgamation – they do not want change. The meeting closed at 9.10 p.m.
APPENDIX 4
Strand on the Green Infant and Nursery School Proposed amalgamation meeting between staff and
London Borough of Hounslow officers.
At a meeting held in the hall at the School on 26 January 2016 at 4.00 pm
London Borough of Hounslow attendees: Confidential
All staff at the school had been invited to the meeting. An attendance sheet was circulated at the meeting, to provide an accurate record of those staff present, which will form part of the information submitted to Cabinet. 35 staff attended.
Also Present: KL, correspondent
Following a welcome by Ms T (Interim Headteacher) and introductions by the LA Officers present, SP opened the meeting and advised that, as all those present had received the full Consultation Document, she intended to spend around 15 minutes presenting the key points of the document through a series of five slides. SP advised that the remaining time would be for staff to raise any questions and put forward their views.
1 Presentation
a) The Proposal
The Regulations set out what the Local Authority (LA) need to do to establish a
new Primary School, which can be through competition or following consultation,
as in this case.
The LA would close both the infant, nursery and junior schools on 31 December
2016 and open a new primary school with a nursery, on 1 January 2017. The
three-form entry current in both schools would remain and all pupils
automatically transferred to the new school. No further expansion was planned.
SP advised that the process had been triggered by the resignation of the
previous Infant & Nursery Headteacher.
In 2007, the Council Executive introduced a policy that asserted that the LA
would consider amalgamation of separate junior and infant schools to form an
all-through primary school and this process would be triggered by the
resignation or retirement of a Headteacher of either school.
SP advised that the process was at the informal consultation stage and
amalgamation was not a foregone conclusion. The informal consultation was to
allow interested parties (staff, parents/carers and governors) at both schools to
put forward their views.
b) The benefits of a Primary School
SP reminded staff that the proposal was not a reflection on either school and the LA believed that, in general, the advantages of a primary school outweigh the disadvantages:
A single application needed for pupils,
APPENDIX 4
Smooth transition between Y2 and Y3, with no dip between the Key Stages, less repetition of learning
Clear accountability, with one Headteacher and Governing Body, and one ethos.
Continuous single approach to the curriculum,
Clearer tracking of pupil learning and assessment over a longer period of time
Greater opportunities for staff development are likely, with opportunities to broaden experience in Early Years, KS1 and KS2.
A larger proportion of the budget will be available for teaching and learning. SP advised that in addition to the main budget funding formula which was driven by pupil numbers, the schools currently both received a fixed lump sum of £110k. If the amalgamation went ahead this would reduce to one fixed lump sum of £110K for the new school; however there was protection in the first year. The reduction would initially be limited to £33k – leaving a lump sum of £187k – and then in the second year reduce to £110k, which was the fixed amount currently received by all primary schools. This loss of income would likely be offset by savings of one HT salary, and single SLA contracts for HR, IT etc. A model budget had been provided to both schools.
c) Implications of amalgamation
Staff were reminded that all the pupils on roll in January 2017 would
automatically transfer to the new school
The current Governing Bodies would remain until both schools closed but a
temporary, or shadow, Governing Body, made up of representatives of both GBs
currently in place, would take a lead on establishing the new school and would
be responsible for appointing the new Headteacher. A permanent Governing
Body would be established when the new school opened.
There would be no change to the current admissions procedures and as the size
of school would remain at three-form entry throughout, there was unlikely to be
any change for class teachers, although the Senior Leadership Team (SLT) may
change, but this would be for the temporary GB to decide.
When a new school is established, any previous Ofsted judgments are cancelled
and the new school would start with a blank sheet.
d) Proposed process and timeframes
The current informal process will last until 26 February 2016 and, although there will be
no further face-to-face meetings with staff, parents and governors after this week, the LA welcomed responses to the questionnaire provided in the consultation document, and letters or emails from individuals or groups affected by the proposal, until that date.
The LA will gather all the information, including the minutes of the meetings, responses to the questionnaire etc and provide a report, reflecting the views put forward, for Cabinet Members to consider and make a decision by 26 April 2016.
Cabinet may decide to stop the process, to change the proposal because of the consultation feedback, or to proceed to the next stage.
If Cabinet decide to move forward with the amalgamation, Statutory Notices will
be issued and the consultation moves to a formal stage, with an opportunity to
comment on the Notices. A temporary Governing Body would be appointed
during the summer term.
The final decision on the amalgamation would be made by the Schools
Adjudicator, who having had access to all the information, will have six weeks to
APPENDIX 4
consider the proposal. SP advised that the Schools Adjudicator may wish to
visit either/both schools to gather further information before reaching a decision.
Any decision made by the Adjudicator is likely to be during summer 2016 and
this would leave insufficient time for a new school to be in place by September
2016. In the past, the Adjudicator has rejected proposals to postpone an
amalgamation to the start of the next academic year, so the LA believe that
January 2017 is a viable date for the new school to open.
e) Response to the Consultation
SP reminded staff that this meeting was part of the process and it would be helpful if as many people as possible responded to the questionnaire before 26 February 2016.
2 Question and Answer session
SP invited comments and questions from the floor at 4.20pm. Ms T said that the staff worked closely as a team and, as a group, had considered the proposal very carefully. As always, the staff put the children at the heart of their considerations, and Ms T wanted to make it clear that the staff unanimously opposed the proposal. In particular, they were very disappointed in the generic approach taken by the LA, which seemed to ignore the very special qualities of both infant and junior schools. Ms T went on to say that, while the staff at the Infant and Nursery School were very talented and could probably make the amalgamation work, they failed to see why they needed to do this, when there seemed very little to gain and the potential to lose the excellence that the school had at present. Ms T explained that all the staff are loyal, and very experienced, and many other schools which had amalgamated had suffered staff turnover. The gamble presented for the current pupils was unacceptable, particularly as there seems to be no valid reason for the change. The staff are, rightly, very passionate and proud of the school and hoped to present a reasoned, not too emotional, argument why the amalgamation should not go ahead. Comment (DHT): The LA have put forward a number of benefits from amalgamating the schools, but we already work closely with the junior school and the approach to the Key Stages are already very similar. One Headteacher will be stretched in dealing with more than 340 pupils, there will be less attention to individuals and less opportunities to speak to staff. We are very much a community school and have recently expanded to include the Swan Centre, we are not the same as other schools, and the parent-body is very involved with everything we do. How would one Headteacher be visible in the same way with more than 700 pupils? Comment (T): We do not want to lose the warmth, the knowledge of all our families, which we regard as special and precious. I have worked here for more than 10 years and do not want to lose that closeness with the families. Comment (DHT): One Headteacher, with a large school population will find it more challenging to deal with discipline for example, this has been highlighted by the National Association of Head Teachers and MG. We need to foster respect throughout the school and ensure that the more vulnerable groups, such as children from deprived backgrounds, SEND pupils etc. continue to be nurtured, and it is accepted that they suffer in larger schools
APPENDIX 4
Response (SP): There is no doubt that a primary school would be different, but there would be no expansion and no change to the class structure. We have three-form entry primary schools within the borough which work very successfully. Comment (HT): I have had extensive discussion with other Headteachers, including with Heads of other amalgamated schools, who all agree that a Primary school has a very different feel. We have already had potential parents concerned about their child coming to a three-form entry school, which they perceive as too large and this, together with the uncertainty about a possible amalgamation, could affect pupil numbers. Response (SP): there has been no evidence of this in the recent admissions exercise. Comment (T): Currently the Headteacher visits all classes at least weekly, we have good contacts within the junior school already; this school is special and we do not want to change it, you should come and spend a week here, and at the junior school, and see what we might lose. You mentioned that there would be common policies throughout the school and this would be a benefit to transition between the Key stages. What is wrong with the current policies? We would be re-writing policies for a very long time, it could take months or years to re-negotiate these and this will take staff time away from children. We ensure that currently the maths and handwriting policies flow between the two schools. Apart from the wasted time that would be spent re-writing policies, which work perfectly well in both schools, it would take years to embed and implement these fully. Planning across the Key Stages might be consistent if it were a primary school, but there will always be differences, to reflect the differing needs across the key stages. Response (SP): We are looking at the long term planning consistency, not the specific format. We accept that the current policies are working as well as you say, but in the longer term are looking for consistent and continuous progression through the school. Comment (T): We already share CPD and elements of planning with the junior school so there is no advantage to the change. Response (DB): All schools are different. In the past, the schools which have amalgamated have generally had one weaker and one stronger partner. This school is different, but the Policy provides the LA officers, and staff, an opportunity to review the premise that an all-through primary school will bring long-term advantages. The LA is obliged to consider this. We already know that under national funding format changes, London will be a net loser, and we already have some smaller schools struggling within current budgetary constraints. It is difficult to recruit and retain quality Headteachers and the LA must consider these issues. We understand that there are strong feelings, but we are charged with looking at this dispassionately. Not all consultations have led to amalgamations so this is not a foregone conclusion, but we must pose the questions. Comment (T) We might accept that, but it is not helped that this is a generic consultation document and does not take into account the special circumstances of this school. Response (DB): No one here was involved in the formulation of the Policy, but our role is to assert it generally. It is not possible to tailor the policy for individual schools, we present the same policy to all schools that meet the criteria for considering amalgamation. We are engaging in discussion and having a debate so that we understand your feelings and can reflect your views so that the Cabinet can make an informed decision. The LA is conscious that, in some cases, there have been tensions between infant and junior schools which, without a satisfactory interface, can lead to difficulties. Comment (T): But we are moderated by the LA and HLPB and they agree with the Ofsted ‘outstanding’ judgment. We also have a KS1 and an Early Years moderator on the staff. We have worked hard to get a good level of data and achievement for our children to prepare them and inform the junior school, and we are aware of other schools’ data. If you
APPENDIX 4
could show that there will be better outcomes for our children because of amalgamation, we might be more prepared to consider it. Comment (HT) There is good co-operation and interface between the two schools and we have a good working relationship with staff at all levels. There is not any tension about the KS1 baseline. The Fischer Family Trust (FFT) have done extensive research looking at outcomes of amalgamated all-through primary schools against split schools and it seems that any early value added fades and it takes 8-9 years to recover. (Information from FFT tabled at the meeting and retained by the LA). Comment (T): We would like to return to the perceived benefits. Recruitment and retention is not a problem in this school. There has been solid retention of staff over the past six years of between 94 -98% across both teaching and support staff. Staff that have left have done so only because of family circumstances, or to relocate out of London. Our teaching staff have all been rated as good – outstanding and the staff surveys carried out during the past two years have reflected, through the high number of completed returns and the comments, that staff are happy, fulfilled and supported. JY has congratulated the school on the results of the staff surveys. You mentioned the difficulties in recruitment in London and that there would be more opportunities for staff in a primary school. We do not agree with this, we have good succession planning, there are real opportunities to specialise and become expert leaders in chosen areas. Staff made a specific choice to work within the Early Years and Key Stage 1 areas and welcome the opportunity to take ownership of subjects and areas of expertise. We are a unique school and have excellent links, because of our expertise, with other schools in London. All our leaders have five, or more, years’ experience and we regularly host visits from other schools whose staff visit to take advantage of that knowledge. (A list of some twenty schools the Infant and Nursery school has collaborated with was tabled at the meeting, and retained by the LA) Merging with the junior school would not increase the current opportunities for our staff, at all levels, indeed, to some extent it would dissipate the expertise we currently have. Response (DB): It is a pleasure to hear you talk so positively about the school, and we are glad to note the collaboration, outward focus and expertise, which we respect. Our job is to bear in mind the effect a strong Early Years start can have on post-16 outcomes and you point out that in some primary schools this is not the case. You are saying that your Infant school provides precision, but it is not true to say that this does not happen in primary schools Comment (T): Yes but it is the risks involved, if there was a problem between the Infant and junior schools the amalgamation proposal would make more sense, but this is not the case. Comment (T): You mentioned that learning would be improved through consistency and continuity. We are all dedicated in the school and would do our best to make amalgamation work if we stayed. Three to five years disruption does not sit well for the school pupils or staff. If you look at our websites, you will see that both schools have a similar approach in our Vision and Mission statements, any differences are specific to reflect our school population, so there is no advantage to amalgamating from that point of view. This school is judged as ‘outstanding’, confirmed by moderation and a recent Peer Challenge review team, and the juniors judged as ‘good’. If we amalgamate, we will lose this history. You will see from the data provided (Data information tabled at the meeting and retained by the LA) that we have consistently good outcomes across the board, our GLD is improving, as is the progress of our PP pupils. We continue to close gaps and perform
APPENDIX 4
consistently above national average. How will amalgamation help maintain this progress? It may return over time with careful management, but there will be disruption. Response (SP): Most other schools which have amalgamated have made similar points and have questioned the need to change what is working well. You are clearly doing a great job at KS1 but why not consider that this might be spread throughout a larger school, one that is stronger and with more consistency? Comment (T): This is like making a cake – you make a delicious little cake and think that if you treble the ingredients you will get a bigger and better cake – unfortunately, if you are a baker, you will know that this is not always the case, you might get a bigger cake but it is not always better. Response (AG): We have some data about recently amalgamated schools in Hounslow which we will leave for you. Six schools have been considered for amalgamation under this process, five have amalgamated, and the sixth school is currently being reconsidered under the process again. We have given information about the Ofsted judgments of those schools that have been re-inspected since amalgamation. One went down and three went up. As you are aware, it is difficult to make direct comparisons, as the Ofsted inspection criteria have changed considerably since 2007, which is when one of the schools was last inspected before amalgamation. You have asked us to provide information about staff retention since the amalgamation and we are gathering this from the schools, and will make this available by the end of the week. Of the schools that have responded Chatsworth reported no loss of staff as did Bedfont. Three of the Headteachers have remained, one Executive Headteacher is in post and there has been one redundancy. Information about attainment at KS1 and KS2 is included and you will see this has been a mixed picture. Comment (HT): We do not want to be disrespectful or arrogant, and we accept that there is always room for improvement, but this information has not influenced us to change our view on amalgamation. The Ofsted comparisons may not be like for like but we might lose what we have worked so hard to achieve here. Response (DB): Yes, we acknowledge that this school is different to other schools considered for amalgamation. You have made the point that the consultation is generic and would be more meaningful if it was bespoke, but the policy is to cover all schools and it is difficult at the outset to create a meaningful document that covers all the nuances of a situation. There is room for us to improve and your rigour helps us to do this. Comment (T): You mention that one Headteacher would bring improved consistency, but the Borough should consider themselves very lucky to have a good Head at the junior school and to have someone as talented as VT to step in and carry on the excellent work at the infant school. This is a unique situation. As a team, we could all have moved to better-paid jobs in a neighbouring borough, where we could increase our salary by £4k without any change to our job or travelling time, yet we have chosen to stay, and continue to do so. The LA should be holding this school up as an example rather than trying to change it. Comment: (T): On the question of retaining staff, has the retention in the amalgamated schools been as high as it was before? Response (AG): We do not have that information yet but have asked the schools to provide it and will pass this information to you shortly. (OO) We appreciate all the information you have provided, the well-made points and challenges which will make this an excellent consultation. You have mentioned the good
APPENDIX 4
things and the status of the school within the local community. We are looking at two great schools here, would that not make it easier if amalgamation went ahead? Comment (HT) We will strive to make the best of any situation and do the best for our children but, as we already have in place so many of the benefits you cite as advantages, this does not need to go ahead. Response (DB) The LA has been faced with pressure in parts of the borough on pupil places and we have had many discussions about size of schools. As you know some schools within the area have seven-form entry. In 2012 we looked at the organisation needed to accommodate an increase in school places of 25%, while retaining the values and looking at the maximum viable size. Headteachers put forward their views, which were diverse. In 2012 the EIP agreed a new standard, with a school having an average of two, three or four form entry, so this school would not be considered a large school. Comment: The NCSL (National College for School Leadership) have suggested that primary schools with a three or four-form entry, or larger, provide additional challenges for management. Response: But at the bigger schools the Heads say that they know all the children, perhaps not in the same way, and there are some advantages of being a bigger school, delegation would be different, and the role of middle leaders would change. Comment (T): There are logistical challenges of a larger school. All the staff in this school meet together for 15 minutes before the start of each day, we look at any problems, updates, changes etc. This is something that works well and includes all staff throughout the school. I doubt that this could carry on with twice as many staff and there is certainly not one area that could be used as a staff room, which would be very important if the schools amalgamated. Currently the SLT have an open door policy, I came here as an NQT and chose to stay because of the level of expertise and support. I do not have to make an appointment to see the Head or any member of the SLT if I have a problem, but one Head could not continue to do this with twice as many staff, so the excellent working relationships we have here would change. Comment (SS): I have worked here for twenty years and I have had the opportunity to progress within the school in a variety of roles. I would hate to see the family atmosphere of the school lost, and to lose the close relationships we have built up with families during that time. The SLT will be under pressure if the amalgamation happens and good leaders are important. Response (DB): We appreciate that you are highlighting the distinctive and very special opportunities offered by a small school but larger schools can also be successful. Comment (T): There has been no feasibility on the practicalities needed for a large school – we could not have a whole school assembly for instance, which we believe is very important. Response (SP): It is not seen as essential that there should be one space that could accommodate all the children, and the two halls would continue to be used. Comment (T): You mentioned that an amalgamated school would provide a smoother transition between Y2 and Y3 where there is traditionally a dip in performance and progress. There is no dip between our schools because we make sure that the children are prepared for the change, both emotionally and academically, and this is supported by data and by a survey, where 98% of parents see the transition as a strength. How many primary schools can say that?
APPENDIX 4
Comment (HoC): I represent the Swan Centre and we are still at an early stage of integrating the Centre. We have been supported throughout by a huge input from the SLT and Headteacher of this school. If the amalgamation goes ahead, the focus will inevitably shift away from the Swan Centre at a critical time for us and the vulnerable pupils we support. Response (DB): We respect and understand that you would not welcome this diversion of the leadership’s attention away from the Centre and you want the continued support of an excellent leadership team. There would be strong leaders in a primary school and the support would continue and, as you know, the funding for the Centre is quite separate. We understand that the quality of leadership and management at all levels is more significant than the structure. We realise that change is not pleasant, but we do need to review this and think it through in a respectful way. Ultimately, we look at the big picture, including the proposal made by the Prime Minister that he would like every school to become an academy or multi-academy by 2020. Comment (HT): There are so many changes: the Swan Centre, the loss of a Headteacher, the proposed amalgamation and now adding academies into the mix. Why do we have to change now when we are likely to have to make another change by 2020? Response (DB): This is an unfolding situation, the writing may be on the wall but there is no White Paper, but this may interact with this consultation. Comment (T): The GB here has already addressed the possibility of becoming an academy and thought through what might happen, all schools are organised differently but we do try to think ahead and make appropriate plans. We would not want to change to a Primary school in 2017 and then be forced into yet another change within three years. Response (DB): Policies will develop as scenarios unfold. Comment (HT): You mentioned the budget and that there would be a minimum £110K cut in funding if we became a primary school. The funding from the number of pupils on roll, may well be affected by the uncertainty brought about by the possibility that the school may become a primary school. We usually have a very stable intake and normally have a waiting list. If this changes we will lose our core funding and the budget will be affected by more than the £110k lump sum. Comment (SS): There has been no discussion about the funding for changes for office staff and a main reception area, we will need a big office in order to support the school well and this will have financial implications. Response (SP): Yes we would not disagree that currently there is no proposal for a capital budget to support changes needed, such as adequate office space and a staff room, and we would need to look at this. (DB) Yes we would need to undertake a feasibility study to understand how cohesive working could be implemented and what the financial impact would be. It is not possible to do this before the consultation period, but needs to be considered as part of the due diligence process and take stock of the requirement for an office and staff room. Comment (HT): This has been a very interesting discussion and, while we could no doubt make a success of amalgamation, we have not heard an argument that would convince us that we should take this risk. 100% of the staff and 100% of the governors are opposed to the amalgamation and it is likely that a similar high proportion of parents will oppose the proposal. If this is the case, what would happen? Would this influence the consultation and the decision of the Cabinet? Response: It would be significant, and form part of the report presented to the Council members. They make the political decision on the back of the report.
APPENDIX 4
Comment (S/P): You indicated that it is a problem for parents having to re-apply at KS2, but this is not a problem as you (the LA) have made this a simple on-line process. There may have been two or three families who had some difficulties in completing the form, but they were well supported by admin staff at the school. The application at that point gives parents a time to reflect on their child and their progress. Comment (T): As an NQT I would like to say that I have found in this school an enormous strength, a firm foundation and unfailing support. Comment (HT) We are passionate about this school, which you have heard has such great strengths and ensures staff, parents and pupils provide, and receive, support. SP and Mr B thanked everyone for coming and for ensuring that the meeting had been informative, interesting and positive, but had to end the discussion, as parents would be arriving for their meeting in a few minutes. The meeting closed at 5.55pm.
APPENDIX 4
Strand on the Green Infant and Nursery School Proposed amalgamation meeting between parents and London
Borough of Hounslow officers
At a meeting held in the hall at the School on 26 January 2016 at 6.00 pm
London Borough of Hounslow attendees: Confidential All parents and carers of children attending the school had been invited to the meeting. Attendance sheets were circulated at the meeting, and one left at the school office, to provide an accurate record of those present, which will form part of the information submitted to Cabinet. 119 Parents attended. Also Present: Confidential , correspondent
Ms T (Interim Headteacher) welcomed parents to the meeting and outlined evacuation procedures should a fire alarm sound, and then left the meeting at 6.05pm. SP opened the meeting and the LA officers introduced themselves S{ went on to say that, as all those present had received the full Consultation Document, she intended to spend around fifteen minutes presenting the key points of the document through a series of five slides. SP asked that any questions or comments be raised after the presentation, at which point she would be happy to return to the relevant slides if that was helpful.
3 Presentation
f) The Proposal
The Regulations set out what the Local Authority (LA) need to do to establish a
new Primary School, which can be through competition or following consultation,
as in this case.
The LA would close both the infant, nursery and junior schools on 31 December
2016 and open a new primary school, with a nursery, on 1 January 2017. The
three-form entry current in both schools would remain and all pupils
automatically transferred to the new school. No further expansion was planned.
Ms SP advised that the process had been triggered by the resignation of the
previous Infant & Nursery Headteacher.
In 2007, the Council Executive introduced a policy that asserted that the LA
would consider amalgamation of separate junior and infant schools to form an
all-through primary school, and this process would be triggered by the
resignation, or retirement, of the Headteacher of either school.
SP advised that the process was at the informal consultation stage and
amalgamation was not a foregone conclusion. The informal consultation was to
allow interested parties (staff, parents/carers and governors) at both schools to
put forward their views.
g) The benefits of a Primary School
SP reminded parents that the proposal was not a reflection on either school, and the LA believed that, in general, the advantages of a primary school outweigh the disadvantages:
APPENDIX 4
A single application needed for pupils,
Smooth transition between Y2 and Y3, with no dip between the Key Stages, less repetition of learning
Clear accountability, with one Headteacher and Governing Body, and one ethos.
Continuous single approach to the curriculum,
Clearer tracking of pupil learning and assessment over a longer period of time
Practical benefits, such as having only one inset date.
Note: At 6.15pm, a number of parents arrived and additional seating was brought into the hall. The presentation continued at 6.20pm
Greater opportunities for staff development are likely, with opportunities to broaden experience in Early Years, KS1 and KS2 and to share learning throughout the school.
A larger proportion of the budget will be available for teaching and learning. SP advised that in addition to the main budget funding formula which was driven by pupil numbers, the schools currently both received a fixed lump sum of £110k. If the amalgamation went ahead this would reduce to one fixed lump sum of £110K for the new school; however there was protection in the first year. The reduction would initially be limited to £33k – leaving a lump sum of £187k – and then in the second year reduce to £110k, which was the fixed amount currently received by all primary schools. This loss of income would likely be offset by savings of one HT salary, and single SLA contracts for HR, IT etc. A model budget had been provided to both schools. .
h) Implications of amalgamation
Parents were reminded that all the pupils on roll in January 2017 would
automatically transfer to the new school
The current Governing Bodies would remain until both schools closed but a
temporary, or shadow, Governing Body would be set up, made up of
representatives of both Governing Bodies currently in place, which would lead
on establishing the new school and would be responsible for appointing the new
Headteacher. A permanent Governing Body would be established once the new
school opened.
There would be no change to the current admissions procedures and as the size
of school would remain at three-form entry throughout, there was unlikely to be
any change for class teachers, although the Senior Leadership Team (SLT) may
change, but this would be for the temporary GB to decide.
SP mentioned that concerns had been raised about the size of the primary
school at the previous meeting. She advised parents that the Education
Improvement Partnership (EIP) had looked at the sizes of schools in relation to
school expansions and the demand for places throughout the borough, and an
average four-form entry school was considered a reasonable size. SP went on
to say that, in larger primary schools operating in the borough, headteachers
report that they do know all the children and have longer to build and maintain
relationships with the families
When a new school is established, any previous Ofsted judgments are
cancelled, and the new school starts with a blank sheet.
i) Proposed process and timeframes
The current informal process will last until 26 February 2016 and, although there will be
no further face-to-face meetings with staff, parents and governors after this week, the
APPENDIX 4
LA welcomed responses to the questionnaire provided in the consultation document, and letters or emails from individuals or groups affected by the proposal, until that date.
The LA will gather all the information, including the minutes of the meetings, responses to the questionnaire etc and provide a report, reflecting the views put forward, for Cabinet Members to consider and make a decision by 26 April 2016.
Cabinet may decide to stop the process, to change the proposal because of the consultation feedback, or to proceed.
If Cabinet decide to move forward with the amalgamation, Statutory Notices are
issued, and the consultation moves to a formal stage, with an opportunity to
comment on the Notices. A temporary Governing Body would be appointed
during the summer term.
The final decision on the amalgamation would be made by the School
Adjudicator who, having had access to all the information will have six weeks to
consider the proposal. SP advised that the School Adjudicator may wish to visit
either/both schools to gather further information before reaching a decision.
Any decision made by the Adjudicator is likely to be during summer 2016, which
would leave insufficient time for a new school to be in place by September
2016. In the past, the Adjudicator has rejected proposals to postpone an
amalgamation to the start of the next academic year, so the LA believe that
January 2017 is a viable date for the new school to open.
j) Response to the Consultation
SP reminded parents and cares that this meeting was just part of the consultation process but it would be helpful if as many people as possible responded to the questionnaire before 26 February 2016.
4 Question and Answer session
SP invited comments and questions from the floor at 6.30pm and asked everyone if they would mind giving their connection to the school and their child’s year group. Note: there was enthusiastic applause from the audience throughout the meeting to points made by parents Comment: This is a point for clarification: the link to the consultation document provides access to that document only, not to the questionnaire. Response (SP): Yes, the link was to the consultation document, and the questionnaire is not an online form. Comment: Please return to the first slide. You mention savings would be likely if the schools amalgamated, but the bottom line is that the £110k is from a central fund, so there would be no savings for the LA. You say the advantages of amalgamation outweigh the disadvantages; basically, our children will be at a school with £110k less, each year, spent on their education. We have some sympathies with the LA as you are having a tough time with funding, but we are against the amalgamation, we voluntarily raise funds for the school and can only see a negative outcome if there was an amalgamation. Comment: I am a parent of children in Y2 and Y5. The £110k will not be the only cut to the school budget will it? PE funding will be cut immediately and merging the two schools’ IT systems will be expensive. You mention ‘economies of scale’ but we have information that the merger of IT would be a minimum of £33k to set up and the PE budget would be slashed by £8k. You might save one Headteacher’s salary but there will be additional costs.
APPENDIX 4
Response: (SP) We have asked schools, which have already amalgamated within the borough for information on costs, incurred directly as a result of amalgamation and will pass this to the SLT when we have it. Comment: I am a parent of a child in Reception. There will be other costs, as there will have to be structural changes. Response (SP): This was raised at the meeting with staff. There is currently no capital provision for the amalgamation and we need to look at the requirements of a primary school, including suitable accommodation for the admin staff and accommodation for teachers and support staff. Comment: Parent of children in Reception/Y3. You have said that one of the benefits of becoming a primary school will be that a greater proportion of the budget can be spent on teaching and learning. You say that there will be economies, such as saving the salary of one Headteacher. This is disingenuous and misleading. Are all the other points you put forward as benefits as misleading? Response (AG): You have to look at the additional capacity and resources that would be available to a larger school and put the focus on teaching and learning. Comment: You have not made any point. To put it simply, If you have a pizza and cut it into nine slices but don’t feed the teacher, it doesn’t mean that the children get more. What you are saying about teaching and learning is a sham. Comment: I am the parent of a Y2 child, my older children were pupils here in the 90s and I have been involved in the PTA and as a governor. Putting this in the simplest terms - this is not broken, so why fix it? As a ratepayer I would like to know how much this is costing and if, and when, the junior Headteacher retires, probably in a couple of years, if this whole exercise will be started again? In 2020, all schools are likely to have to become academies, why do we have to go through this now? This is a brilliant school, the staff are fantastic and retention is strong. Why are you so intent on upsetting voters? Response(SP) The Policy was established by members (councillors) in 2007 and asserts that the LA will consult with interested parties and consider amalgamation when a Headteacher of separate junior and infant schools retires or resigns. This exercise was triggered by the resignation of the previous Infant Headteacher. The Policy demands that we look at this, and covers all schools in the borough. This school may be different from others which have been considered for amalgamation in the past. The majority of these have had different strengths, with one weaker school in the partnership. You may think that there are no benefits to be gained, but Policy demands that we look at this school although both Infant and juniors are strong schools. Cabinet may take a decision to look at this in the future following comments received during this consultation.. Comment: You have defended the budget and say that the children will benefit from a greater proportion if there is one school. So many of the benefits you mention already exist in the two schools now. You mentioned a common IT system would be a benefit – I run a small business and am fully aware that introducing common IT software will have a cost, not only a direct one, but the staff time spent implementing it, which will distract from educating our children. You have said that you would be saving costs by having only one Head, but you would be crazy if you did not employ Vanessa Townsend. Comment: I am a parent of a child in Y1. We have not heard anything about the LA considering the emotional wellbeing of either the children or staff during this time. Response (AG) The amalgamation could be an opportunity to share a seamless learning journey from Early Years through to Y6 providing a strong foundation and consistent development. Comment: I am a parent of a child in the nursery and we chose this school because it provides a nurturing environment for our child, who has a statement. The staff are excellent, the environment is nurturing and parents are supported – we have to challenge this proposal.
APPENDIX 4
Response (SP) All- through primary schools can and do provide the nurturing support for SEND pupils. It is possible to maximise on all the good points that exist in this school and spread them through a larger school. Comment Two Heads are definitely better than one. I have two adopted children and we chose this school because of its special qualities. It has been a difficult journey for our family but, with specialist help, our children have settled. Why should they be put through yet another transition? Comment As a parent of a Y1 child I believe that staff will be diverted to deal with the changes, the children will not have the same attention, and any perceived benefit to the development of staff will be nullified. Comment: I am a parent of a child in Y2 and have also been working on a p/t basis at the Swan Centre, and it has been wonderful to see the children there so transformed. What affect will this change have on the budget of the Centre, as I have been told that I will no longer have a job there? Response (MM) The funding for the Centre is additional to the school budget. Of course any change to the SLT may affect the school’s input into the Centre. Comment I have a child in Orange class. This talk about budgets is really not relevant to the children here – they are the key to the future of the UK. What benefits would there be for the children? We want facts on the effects of amalgamation. Response (AG): There are always circumstances when those directly involved believe it would be better that amalgamation should not go ahead, but the LA would support the school and believe that over the longer term the school would benefit from a seamless and consistent approach. Over the past five years, six schools have been considered for amalgamation, one of which did not go ahead. Of the others the data on KS1, reading writing and maths, after the merge results showed that Bedfont went down by 1%, Chatsworth and Cranford were up in all, Heston had mixed results and the data for Alexandra is not available yet but, during the year of the merge, all their results were up. In KS2 three out of the four schools went up, and again Alexandra data is not yet available but, in the year of the merge, the data shows a 6% improvement. We are gathering data about staff retention direct from the schools but both Bedfont and Chatsworth say they did not lose staff following the amalgamation. Comment: Is that correct? I thought at the junior meeting you said that 11 staff had left from one school and four from the other? [Note: the comment made at the junior meeting about staff leaving an amalgamated school was made by a parent, not the LA.] Response AG: We will let the SLT have all the data about Reception, Y3, and staff retention as soon as we have had a response from the schools, hopefully by the end of the week. I will move on to Ofsted ratings: before amalgamation Bedfont was Requires Improvement (RI)/Good(G) and is now Good. Chatsworth was outstanding/outstanding (O) and is now G; Cranford G/RI and now G; Heston RI/G now G. Alexandra has not been inspected since amalgamating. The Ofsted outcomes cannot really be directly compared, as the inspection framework has changed considerably since some of the schools inspected, prior to amalgamation, but all but one improved. Of the amalgamated schools three appointed the remaining Headteacher, one went to external advertisement and was without a Head for two terms and one had no remaining Head so went to advertisement but did not appoint, and then appointed an Executive Head. There was one redundancy. Comment: All of this information has not really made the benefit of amalgamation any clearer for the children of this school.
APPENDIX 4
Response (AG): There would be a more cohesive approach to teaching and learning across the school for example, behaviour, all areas of planning for the curriculum right through from Early Years to Y6 which would provide a much smoother transition between the key stages. Comment: What about the sixth school – Sparrow Farm? Did the councillors recommend that it became an academy? Response: (SP) No, they looked at the report and decided not to proceed with the amalgamation. Comment: Can you clarify the information you gave about Ofsted judgments? I believe you said that the only schools that were outstanding were, after amalgamation, now only judged as good? Surely amalgamation is just an excuse for the industrialisation of our children’s learning? Response: (AG) The central premise of amalgamation is consistency and fostering a cohesive approach, so that any dips in performance, for instance at Y3, would be minimised. Comment: So there is generally a dip in Y3, is this in all schools and what about those that have amalgamated? Response: the impact of a cohesive approach is being assessed at Y3. We are aware that there is currently no dip in performance here at Y3. Comment: How democratic is this process? If 90% of parents are against amalgamation, will that sway the decision? Response (MM): The decision is not ours, the decision to move to the formal stage is made by Cabinet (ten councillors make up the membership of the Cabinet) who have all the information, including the response of parents. Comment : So can we organise a petition? Response (SP): We have had some very useful evidence from staff, which will be valuable to take back to Members Comment: But it is feasible that the leader may ignore the other members, so it is not democratic?. Response: (MM) This is a genuine consultation, and the information we gather, we will share with the Councillors. The report goes forward in the name of the Chair of Educational and Children’s Services, who is a Member of the Cabinet. The LA Policy is to look at amalgamation under these particular circumstances and we cannot say what the outcome will be, we will share your views, but the decision lies with the Councillors. Comment: Who is the Councillor who will submit the report? Response (MM) Councillor Tom Bruce. Comment: There seem to be no formal criteria for the decision making process. It seems the decision is subjective based on your recommendation and Councillor Bruce’s decision on the report to the Cabinet.. You should have clearly defined criteria. Response (MM) the Policy sets out the criteria. Comment: I understand that it is also policy that none of the other schools had more than 650 pupils. Is there a maximum pupil number for primary schools? Response (SP): there is no maximum pupil numbers. The EIP looked at the standards in 2010 and revised the average to three or four form entry. Three-form entry schools, and higher, already exist in the borough. Comment: What was the rationale behind that? Response (MM): We had to review the average two-form entry school, in view of a massive increase in demand for places.
APPENDIX 4
Comment: That might be the case down the A4 but that is not the case here. Response: Yes we understand and will feedback all your views Comment: We do not want to shoot the messenger, but our children and community see no upside to this proposal, only a reduction in the government contribution to funding their education. You need to take back a clear message that there is no benefit in amalgamating this school. Comment I am a parent of children in Y5 and Y2 and work in healthcare. I have done some research into amalgamated schools in Harrow. The information was very dense but, in essence, there was no improvement in achievement in the two years after amalgamation and only 50% improved between the second and fourth years to reach the previous standard. That would be my youngest child’s entire time at this school. He will not get those years back. Response (SP): Yes we understand it is a risk but you have heard that three of the four schools we have data on, have got back to, or improved, the standard within two years of amalgamating. Comment: We moved into the area because this was an outstanding school, we do not want to lose that. Comment: You have spoken to all parties and you must have a sway on the decision, do you think that any of the benefits of amalgamation, which you have cited, apply to this school? Response (SP): This may be a very different school but the benefits are the same. (AG) this is a strong school, but it is possible to maximise your strengths across a larger organisation. Comment: All the evidence suggests this is wrong, you need to consider this rather than this drivel. Response (MM): We need to move on. We will feedback your views. You need to think about the options. There are some benefits such as economies of scale. You might not like the proposal but there are some schools that have problems with transition and we are looking at all schools in the same way. (OO) This is a consultation, we gather your views and your challenges, and we ensure that your points are heard – no one is saying that your views are not valid. Comment: What about the timing? 1 January 2017 is in the middle of an academic year and would mean even more disruption, if it must go ahead why can’t it be in September 2017? Why are you rushing this most important of decisions? Response (SP): the process was triggered by the resignation of the previous Headteacher. We know, from previous experience, that the Schools Adjudicator, who makes the final decision, will not accept September 2017 as an appropriate date, as it is too far in the future. It would not be possible to get a decision and open the school in September 2016, so, in our experience, the most likely date the Adjudicator will agree to is January 2017. (OO): We need to be conscious that we have lost a Headteacher and there is not a substantive Head in place. Comment: It seems as though we will have an interim Headteacher for a considerable time, just because this process is in place. Response (MM) We will be looking at recruiting a substantive Headteacher as soon as possible. Comment : If this situation had arisen three years ago it might have made more sense but the junior Headteacher is on the way out, with only a year or two left and the interim
APPENDIX 4
Headteacher may not be ready to take on a primary school by January 2017. Why can’t you delay this until the junior Head retires? Response (SP): We can bring this back as a consultation response. Comment: This seems to be all about the budget and structure without proper consideration of the effect on education, with the main benefit being about continuity, which we already have. All the documentation about amalgamation seems to suggest that it takes 3-5 years for the school to come to terms with all the changes so, with seven years from KS1-KS2 ,the disruption will cover most of a child’s time at the school. Response (SP): We understand that this is about your children but this is also about the long-term future of the school (MM) All schools are different and many of the 54 schools in the borough would put forward similar arguments, but there is not always continuity, and things change. Comment: But this is not the case at Strand, there is no dip at Y3 Response (AG): You have been very clear on that point but your child’s day-to-day experience should not change, they will have the same number of classes and teachers. Comment I am a parent and a member of staff and maintain that the amalgamation would place an additional workload on staff, with less resources, and the burden on staff would affect the children’s education. All the staff are behind V T, this may not be the case with a new Headteacher. Response: (OO) We see that the school has fantastic leadership, but things change. Surely staff would still be loyal to the school and want to do the best for the children? Comment: The staff are not afraid of change, but I think you will find that none of them agree with this proposal. Comment: As a parent of a child in Y1 I want to say that this is an extraordinary school. The proposal has no specific benefits for Strand on the Green, only generic ones, Can you tell me the specific benefits for this school? Response (SP): This was raised in discussion with staff and we have had a lot of excellent information to feedback as part of our report. This is an informal consultation based on the Policy. (MM) We need to move on, we are required to do this, the Policy is the Policy, the slides are the same wherever we make this presentation. Comment: How many amalgamations are stopped before the formal stage and Statutory Notices issued? Response (SP): As shared with SLT, one Hounslow school. Cabinet will make the decision for this pair of schools on April 26. If they decide to progress the amalgamation at that point, Statutory Notices will be issued, and you may respond to the Notices, the Schools Adjudicator will make the final decision. Comment: You have said that the consultation process is always the same. You have mentioned as a benefit that there would be economies of scale, I believe that you cannot introduce benefits that are not already shown. Response (MM) This was in response to a question, if there is to be a meaningful consultation we must respond to questions, if we did not, there would be little point in us being here. Comment: As a parent of children in Y2 and red class I would like to make a data point. Can one headteacher manage 600-700 pupils effectively? Robin Dunbar Number
APPENDIX 4
research suggests that there is a demonstrable deterioration in relationships with any higher number than 150+. A report by NCSL makes a similar point about numbers. Response (OO): The influence on any group above 150+ is demonstrable, but there are already more than that number of pupils in this school. Comment: Can you share information on how many amalgamations have gone ahead in the face of such strong resistance as shown at this school? Response: (SP) Any amalgamation is always resisted. The strength of feeling is always high, but may not have been demonstrated as it was at the junior school meeting or articulated in the way it has been here. We can make previous reports to cabinet available. Comment: Thank you for the time you have spent listening to why we want to resist the change. On a different slant, I would like to point out that what is happening at this school is exceptional. You have a jewel here and it will be very sad if you decide not to preserve what we value so much. Response (MM): Yes we have understood that this is a very important point, and the report will reflect this. Comment: I am the parent of a child in Reception, and teach in a primary school. This school has a very special focus on the Early Years and Infants. In many primary schools, the focus is on the results of KS2 SATS. Response (MM): You do not say where your primary school is, but I would be very concerned to hear that said of any primary school in this borough. We do understand how special and unique this school is to the parents. Comment: I am a parent and member of staff. Staff believe that this school is special too and we cannot replicate this for 700+ pupils. This is a centre of excellence (which has been evidenced) and what would be the impact on Hounslow if this was lost? Comment: The amalgamation will result in a lost generation of children. They are a precious asset and we cannot measure quantity against the benefits of quality. This school is not broke – don’t fix it. Response (MM): That would be a good note on which to end, but I see there are some other parents wishing to make a point. Comment: Why is the consultation not available in other languages? Response (SP): What other languages are needed? We asked both the junior and infant schools to let us know if there was a need for a translation to meet the needs of a specific group and we have heard nothing from either school. Comment: Arabic would be useful. As parents we do our best to help each other, but surely you should provide this important information in all languages? Response (MM): There are 40+languages spoken in schools in Hounslow, it would be both expensive and time consuming to do this, but we will remind the schools again of our offer to provide a translation if necessary, and do our best to meet any needs identified. Comment: How will the Council communicate the data we have asked for? Response (SP): We hope to provide the data to the school by the end of the week and will ask for it to be circulated to parents. Can we remind you to complete the questionnaire and send letters and emails with your comments to us by 26 February 2016. Thank you for your time, but we must draw the meeting to a close.
The meeting closed at 8.05 pm
APPENDIX 4
Strand-on-the-Green Infant & Nursery School Special Governing Body Meeting
To discuss a proposal from the Local Authority to amalgamate Strand Infant and Junior Schools to form a new school,
Strand on the Green Primary School Minutes of a meeting held at Strand Infants School on
Wednesday, 27 January 2016 at 6.30 pm Governors present: Confidential From the Local Authority: Confidential Attending: Confidential 1. Apologies for absence All members of the Governing Body were present. 2. The Proposal SP presented the proposal from the LA, informed Governors of the process and time-line, and listed the benefits of amalgamation. The proposal followed the Council’s 2007 policy relating to amalgamation of infant and junior schools: discussions with five schools about amalgamation had been triggered in recent years due to the resignation of a Headteacher, in line with the policy. SP informed Governors that her role was to feed-back views to elected members of the London Borough of Hounslow. The consultation was not coming from a position of judgement about either school. The consultation process gave all parties the opportunity to look strategically beyond the current arrangements. It was not simply a process that would happen and there had been cases where it had not happened - the proposal for amalgamation was not a done deal. However, the fact that a decision had been made previously not to proceed with amalgamation did not prevent the LA from revisiting this in the future. The proposal foresaw amalgamation completed for January 2017, with a new Governing Body in place and a temporary Governing Body to manage the changes, in particular the appointment of a new Headteacher. The benefits listed, such as transition between infant and junior sectors, might not be relevant in this case, based on evidence received, and this would be fed back to members. SP had been asked if three-form entry was too large for a primary school. Hounslow’s Education Improvement Partnership (EIP), which represents headteachers from across the borough has stated in their principles around school organisation that four-form entry was considered to be an acceptable size, and in fact there is a five-form entry primary school in Hounslow. Regarding the budget, SP explained that although mainly driven by pupil numbers, each school also received a fixed lump sum of £110k. One of these fixed lump sums would be lost should the schools amalgamate, however in the first year of amalgamation there would be 85% protection, so £33k of one fixed lump sum would be lost the first year, and then in the second year a further £77k would be lost. The regulations do not allow protection beyond this, so the primary school would then receive the same as all other 3FE primary schools. Through economies of scale – one headteacher salary instead of two and efficiencies of combined service level agreements, such as insurance and IT – savings achieved would help to offset the loss of £100k. In terms of the proposal no redundancies were planned, and the only reduction in staffing as a direct result of amalgamation was one Headteacher post.
APPENDIX 4
In terms of Ofsted, when two schools closed they would lose their Ofsted category (outstanding for the infant school; good for the junior school) and would remain without an Ofsted judgment until the first inspection of the new primary school, which would not take place for three years. As regards the formal process, all the data from the consultation would be collated for a public report with findings, a summary of responses, and minutes of the meetings, for consideration by the Local Authority cabinet of elected members. This meeting would be public and open to observation. If a decision was taken to call a halt to the process of amalgamation there would be no further processes. Otherwise the process would continue as per the time-line given in the presentation. If agreed, the amalgamation would be scrutinised by the Office of the Schools Adjudicator, an independent body, for final approval. The Schools Adjudicator might ask for meetings or wish to make a visit to the schools, perhaps if there were strong views and representations. There were still opportunities to participate in the consultation process, which continued until 26 February. 3. Response from Governors Governors had prepared a joint paper in response to the proposals, to submit as evidence to the council and making points and representing their views. All Governors had signed this paper, presented by SL, and were unanimously opposed to the amalgamation. Governors understood that the process had been triggered and the Governing Body had sat down to decide on how to respond. The decision had been taken to consult among themselves with a process of their own. Governors were proud of their GB and the school that they felt privileged to be a part of, and the position the school had within the community. Parents were passionate about the school. Mr L picked up on two important points. Was the process of amalgamation going to provide better outcomes for the children now and in the future? Would the proposal really build on the community hub that Strand on the Green had developed as a school? Governors had wanted to look at the proposal from the point of view of providing better outcomes for the school and if it did, they would get behind it. If not, Governors would be opposed. Governors had taken time to discuss in depth with the Senior Leadership, teachers and parents, both formally and informally with drop-in sessions for questions. The Governing Body felt it had enough information for a vote and this was unanimously opposed. Mr L emphasised that it was not an emotional decision, but based on outcomes for children. Governors wanted the decision makers to look at this too. Governors challenged Senior Leaders hard to continue to improve outcomes for children and objectives were centred on driving them forward. Governors were familiar with data to demonstrate how well the school was achieving compared with local and national. Governors had this data to study and there was special reference to special needs children coming to the school. These children did well, the school was closing the gaps for many groups of children and Governors pushed hard for them - this was the focus for Governors. Governors felt they had not seen how amalgamation would improve that, they had not seen evidence with data where improvements could result through amalgamation. If the proof were there Governors would be able to see how amalgamation would push performance up, but they were not in that position. There was data that showed that amalgamation would in reality jeopardise good work already done. This was a major point Governors wanted to get across - that the Governing Body did not think outcomes for children could be safeguarded if amalgamation went ahead. There would be disruption to the Senior Leadership Team. The Governing Body had put strong leadership in place, and they were very happy with where the school was. There were strong
APPENDIX 4
candidates, or the school might need to look externally for a Headteacher with the departure of Mr N. With the process of amalgamation how long would that take? The associated disruption would impact on outcomes for children, which could drop. There was agreement amongst all Governors that, taking the data and analysing evidence, arguments put forward in support of the amalgamation process could be countered. It was felt the process should begin with specific evidence because otherwise it could jeopardise the school without understanding what it offered and what it stood to lose. This put the school in a risky situation. Perhaps after five or ten years the school might get back to the point it was at now as an outstanding school, maybe not. Data provided strong evidence but more was needed in the process documentation. There were no comparisons with previously amalgamated schools, for example. Strand had two strong schools and risked more than was likely to be gained. This was a key point for Governors. With amalgamation there would be costs. It would be important to create the right environment for a through primary school with shared office space and shared space for staff. There was no such provision in the buildings so capital expenditure would be needed with the proposal. The newly established Swan Centre was a work yet in progress, but even so there were amazing early results for the children attending. There were needy children going through the centre and that was another risk. There would be expenditure for the first few years and not everything had been taken into account. Strand Infants was in good financial health with a well-managed budget. Governors tried each year to put some funding back into projects that were of benefit to the children - IT, outdoor areas, better facilities, etc. The GB planned for this and the benefits were seen both for parents, for happy children and in the results. This was not something Governors wished to put at risk. Strength of views of Governors and parents of both schools had to be recognised. This showed how good the schools were. The emotion and passion might not be helpful for making conclusions, but it showed the schools were at the heart of the community and people backed them one hundred percent. The schools did so much good in the communities they served, including people who lived in the neighbourhood who might not have pupils. These aspects reached beyond the immediate school. Staff were very much against the proposal. Governors worked closely with them to improve the school. Governors and staff took the proposal very seriously as it related to protecting the outcomes for children - this was the most important aspect to consider. It was the only basis for a decision. Evidence had to relate to the proposal and what impact it might have on outcomes for children in the school. There was no evidence that amalgamation would improve outcomes. 4. Governors’ individual views I went into the process with an open mind and wanted to hear the arguments. If I genuinely felt it would enhance outcomes I would be behind it. Within the context of our two schools we have benefits listed in the presentation. Both are already sharing skills, ideas, working together, with benefits to teachers. I really believe that unless it can be proven that amalgamation would enhance opportunities for our children there doesn’t seem to be a reason for it to go ahead. And there would be the disturbance in the years ahead for the children going through now, because we have spent a lot of time achieving the best possible outcomes. There is also the government intention to turn every school into an academy by 2020 - that would be another disruption in a few years’ time. I live in the community and I am passionate about the school and the community, but my heart is not in this proposal and I would urge the council not to go ahead. I too had an open mind, but we all took the same position on reflection. The weighting on the downside does seem obvious to me, and the disruption. I would like to see a feasibility study, for example; I don’t see how any benefits would be significant enough to risk so much. The document we have submitted to you was prepared by us all. It comes from our community. If you have a new school without Ofsted ratings for three years, many parents would question
APPENDIX 4
whether or not to send their children here. If they didn’t send them we would get children from further afield outside the immediate community, and this causes disruption with cars, travel time, punctuality. There would be significant knock on. We didn’t always fill our places through local families. As our reputation has grown to outstanding we get many of the local families who might have gone to private education, for example, or other schools. A community school should be open and serve its community, where it is placed. This proposal would change the intake. Children from further afield must have to have a longer day, they get more tired. It would be more difficult for the children to travel from further afield. We had empty places 14 or 15 years ago. It has a cost implication for the budget if we don’t fill our places. The real quality of our school is that we have built ourselves into the local community as an infant school, the only one in the Chiswick area. This fact has been attractive to parents. And the quality of our education of course. Taking people around the school, the oldest children being only seven is an attraction and this would no longer exist for Chiswick. A transition from infants to juniors really helps with transition later to secondary school. I have concerns about a temporary GB. Without training, experience or knowledge of the school, to go into recruitment of a headteacher rings alarm bells. I live close by and came to the school before having children because of events here. I’ve since had two children come through the school and it is an attraction for the local community to have the two local schools and the infant care with the nurturing aspect for the children. They skip and dance to school. I was also open-minded. Looking at all the data there is so much risk of losing something that is working so well. There is no issue with transition; it is very well organised between the two schools, pupils meet their new teachers, it’s just over the wall. There would be an element of disturbance for the children here now. Even the consultation process is causing disruption and I can only imagine the amount of work if the proposal went ahead. We haven’t seen any evidence that all the disruption would eventually pay off and that things would be better in years to come. It is a risky process, looking at it scientifically. As parents, 90% of the friends we have are from this community, because of the school. I looked at the process clinically and objectively and tried to put some sort of long or short term view on everything. I have children in both schools. The strongest point through your presentation is the reference to transition. Looking from the outside there are two schools; however, it is a positive process. The effect when the children move from infants to juniors is all very positive and it is a growing process for the children. This is a very impressive school - the quality of the education here, the care and attention for each individual child. This includes the gifted and talented children, the clever ones. Because the infant school’s focus is on the early years it is extremely strong with leadership from the headteacher flowing down. You would not get this with amalgamation. As it is both Headteachers are excellent, approachable, we would risk losing this with one school. It isn’t broken, it’s brilliant! Why take all the time, effort, cost, in breaking down something that is exemplary? As a non-parent Governor I first thought why are there two schools? But you see how the two leadership teams both focus on different aspects of the children’s learning, from the three year olds to the 11 year olds. You could stay the same in having different playgrounds, but again you might say why bother to amalgamate the two schools? You have two leadership teams, two GBs, you
APPENDIX 4
would be reducing the school with one of each. We really focus on outcomes for the infants and we put so much effort into pupil progress, data, interventions, because the further we can get the children in the early years and pass them on to the juniors ahead of the game, the better they will perform throughout their school years. As the two GBs we have joint meetings, focusing on the curriculum, we work closely together, we work closely on transition with a joint policy. The success of the Swan Centre is testament to our successful close working. There are many schools that have excellent early years, but our concern in amalgamation is there will be a different emphasis within a new school, with a new ethos and philosophy. Our concern is this will change for the children. It may be good in five or six years but there is a process to get through - an ethos takes some years to develop. My concern is we will lose; it is starting a new school. As a Parent Governor I have a concern about retention. Moving two entities into one you inevitably lose people. You don’t lose them on day one with safeguarded terms and conditions, but they find things are different. There would be fewer leadership roles and the school might well lose staff because of this. There would be difficulties in recruiting a headteacher into an unknown entity. I would question the benefit of staff retention and recruitment, especially for this school. I was not open-minded! I have been completely against the proposal from the beginning. What we first looked for in a school was one that could meet the special emotional needs of our children. From the moment we stepped into this school we knew it was the right place. My concern was whether it was too big but coming here we saw the ethos, met the SLT, got the feel of the school, that it was small enough. And that there is transition into primary school. For children with special needs this is difficult, but a well-managed transition at seven is a good experience for them later - a small transition, a small change, and then at 11 they may be a bit stronger for transition to secondary school. My children have grown here in confidence and developing so much - and this is all down to the school. It is astonishing. Staff are very well trained, and they have done training in attachment to understand the needs of our children. All the staff know them, as they know all the children in the school. You ask why can’t we have an outstanding primary school but I think this school is outstanding because it is small and it is possible for every member of staff to know every child - not just their names but what is going on in their lives, what they need, their development issues. The concern I have about the proposal is that perhaps it would come good in ten years, but the headteacher would be a strategic management role rather than a nurturing supportive role, and staff will be distracted, their time and attention would go into this change and this would take away what the staff and the SLT do so well. Focus on management would reduce effectiveness, with a new person coming in to a new school with a focus on the merger. We have already lost enough staff and governor time on this process. Both schools have an individual focus. Both are part of the community but they are separate. With amalgamation you would lose staff, lose experienced staff, and there is a teacher crisis. It is difficult to get a headteacher; this school grows its own. There is a reference to repetition of topics - this does not happen, the national curriculum guides this. There is embedding of knowledge and you revisit topics over time, throughout the child’s school career, with age appropriate information. Unless you have evidence to show there is repetition of topics I don’t understand this point. SP responded to say that this had been a point raised by a previously amalgamated school. One would not disagree with that but it is not a weakness here, there is no concrete evidence to support this assertion. Repetition is part of education, to build the children’s knowledge base.
APPENDIX 4
There would have been a building of knowledge, but not repetition. It is to the benefit of the child to reinforce knowledge but repetition does not happen here. The information is different, it is building on knowledge in an age-appropriate way. SP encouraged governors to provide evidence in their feedback to support their response. Starting from a mid-day supervisor staff would be developed and encouraged to do CPD, and could move to support staff and to being teaching assistants in early years. There were staff who would not want to be moved into other areas of the school, but with amalgamation and different leadership this might be considered. There was a fear that the infants school could lose its outstanding judgment that everyone had worked so hard to maintain. Everyone was proud of it. There was a fear that if the wrong leadership were chosen the school could take many years to recover to match the standard it was now. Prove to us that data with an amalgamation would be as good for the children and we would have a different approach. We haven’t seen that. We have worked hard, we are so committed and we achieve the best for our children, which we don’t want to lose. There is no evidence that this proposal would benefit the children - not just those here now but those coming into the school in the future. From the children’s point of view the transition arrangements are good for them. They grow to be the big kids in year 2 and they care for the little ones at lunchtimes and in the playground; then they make the transition to year 3 and they are the little kids again - and the big ones know exactly how it works. It works really well and the children learn transition is positive. Change has to happen for a reason, for example the Swan Centre. We can deal with change when there are good reasons. But we are wrong to do it where there is no data that this will help our children or the school, or the future children at the school. When amalgamation was raised there were a few people with a clear view, but most were open minded. We looked at the benefits you have listed, but we could see they didn’t apply to Strand Infants. We are better than national average at transition stage. Across the two schools we share accountability, learning, etc. This already goes on. So what are given as key benefits to amalgamation, we see they don’t apply here. You have something amazing here, there is something magical going on here and you can’t guarantee you will create the same thing with a new school. We can’t have a clear view on previously amalgamated schools, we can only talk about Strand on the Green. Where we have data. Looking at your guidelines, putting them against Strand, we can appreciate your policy and that this is a big borough. When amalgamation is triggered we would want it to result in better, but we can see the benefits just don’t apply at any level here at Strand Infants. The focus of the infant school is what is magical, they do it so well. You risk everything in this situation. We hope that the council understands that. The Ofsted criteria have changed but we can look at our data and see that with the raised bar it is outstanding. This is a school that others learn from. There isn’t much information about the budget. Are the costs forecast? There is a gap in knowledge. The presentation from the officers doesn’t tell the whole truth about what amalgamation will do for budgets, even with a smaller leadership team there would be a lower total budged available for teaching and learning. There would be less money across the two schools at the end of amalgamation, especially as we already combine resources a number of areas. Looking at amalgamation it could be a good project to take on. But the way this process works doesn’t enable us to get to that point in the time scales or the processes. It needs to be planned for, the reasons why need assessment, looking at the benefits, with a leadership team in place first so a succession plan is there to prevent disruption. This would be done not as a 12 month process
APPENDIX 4
but over, say, five years. There would be a degree of churn but you would hope at the end to have reached the goal. But this is missing. No-one can tell us where the children will get to by the end of the disruption. This process is likely to end up with failure for our schools - I could see the schools in special measures - and we’d be doing it! You have said this is all about people and that is what we are saying. The process is started by a trigger to blindly go forward. We hope the council will look at the situation and come to the conclusion that it would not be right for Strand Infants. It is about people - kids, parents, teachers, governors, community. You say it isn’t to do with saving money. On that basis you could understand making business decisions, and we know how LAs and schools are struggling. But because it is nothing to do with this process, and we have two amazing schools working together, it seems it is not necessary. The council has put £1.5m into the Swan Centre for these two schools to run and we are just up to full complement with 16 children. This is a major project at a critical stage with the children there now and we need more time to get these children settled. The changing face of education - this government proposes to bring academisation for all by 2020. As a GB we can’t ignore this. We can go from disruption now with amalgamation next January, and then within another two years have to go through converting to an academy. We are already looking ahead and we can’t escape from it. It seems this council policy is being overtaken by other political events and we are squeezed in the middle. Does the council really need to do this now? We were once a single GB for the two schools and decided to split. I came to the infants because it is a unique place. I am surprised the council is not thinking about the children at a time when so much is going on in education. While they are here the children do so well, I see how much progress they make. Why should we want to interfere with something like this when we have just built the Swan Centre? I don’t understand why the council wants to make these changes at a time when there is a crisis with schools having to think about academy conversion. I feel heartbroken that the council are not thinking about parents and children, and the teachers. You come into this school and the environment here could not work better. Keep it. There is nothing wrong and the things that are done in this infants and nursery are amazing. It is ridiculous to want to change something that is working so well. Children can come in with no English and then in two weeks they are speaking and understanding and they are newly confident. I could understand if there were problems and the teachers were leaving but no, we are doing very well and I am proud about that, proud that when I come into the office they can tell me every child’s name, what they are doing, if they are late. And the schools are working together anyway. We are happy and successful the way we are. Please tell the members that from a governor who has been here 30 years. We want to stay as we are - it is a unique setting and it would be lovely to stay the way it is. SP replied to say: We understand the passion, how proud you are of the school, and we acknowledge the points you make about the uniqueness of the school. Whilst you question why the LA would even be discussing this, without the conversation we would not have the information to present to the council. What the policy says is that we have to consult and ask the questions. Your points will be taken back. She went on to say that yes, it would be a different school. It doesn’t mean early years could not work in a primary school. We will share more information with you about previously amalgamated schools. We have staff retention information from three of the five previously amalgamated schools, telling us they did not lose staff as a direct result of amalgamation. People don’t necessarily leave straight away. We have very good retention here - you have to work hard to retain staff and this is one of the strengths of the school and it makes it difficult to compare data.
APPENDIX 4
The two leadership teams, the two sets of focus on the KSs - it’s a different model which is why you have the feel of the school - that must be recognised. SP agreed this was an important point, not one that couldn’t be overcome, but understood the point about the changing feel of the school due to different Leadership models. She mentioned regarding with regard to the demand for school places, the LA is clear that there is sufficient demand to meet the capacity, but the LA acknowledge the point made that the school may recruit children from outside of the immediate area due to current parental preference. Mrs G added that amalgamation can potentially open up opportunities for staff working at different phases of the school. This can give teachers a better understanding of pupil progress. This was thought to be a weak argument for Strand Infants as there are similar opportunities already operating, although not such a range. It was less likely a year 6 teacher would move into the nursery class, unless they clearly expressed the wish. Mrs G pointed out that opportunities could result from other structures in a bigger school, such as deputy and assistant headships. But how long would this take and after how much disruption? Amalgamation could set the school up to fail and it might take years to get it back. Our teachers get opportunities for CPD and they work innovatively with other schools We do not say no because we’re afraid of change, but it has to be change in the right way with the children in mind. It has to be for the best, for the children. The way the Swan Centre was working was evidence for how well the schools worked together. The schools could demonstrate how their policies worked for outcomes. Some were joint policies across both schools, others were appropriate to the two schools. SP said that these meetings had been helpful in providing solid evidence to inform the consultation, which would be presented to members. LA officers expressed appreciation that the discussion at this meeting had been balanced, with well-developed arguments clearly articulated. Q If the school didn’t want amalgamation, would it be enforced? It was not so much that, but about understanding the reasoning behind the opposition and the risks. It was not possible to say how much that might influence members. There had not been a triggered amalgamation involving an outstanding and a good school previously. In other examples there was mixed support for amalgamation. It was therefore hard to say what the decision might be. The Chair, on behalf of the Governing Body, thanked the officers for the presentation and the useful meeting and open discussion. Governors appreciated it was a challenge but the officers could now take away all the points, with the minutes that would be produced from the meeting. There was still another month of consultation and responses would be encouraged until the end.
