Joint Consultation Coxheath and Loose s Consultation meeting Wednesday 27 September 2017 at 7 pm at Loose Introduction and purpose of the meeting The Chair of Loose (LPS) welcomed everyone to the consultation meeting which was attended by parents, staff and other stakeholders. The governors attending the meeting were introduced. This included: Governors of Loose Governors of Coxheath Alan Chell, Emma Eldridge, Carole Hardy (Chair), Laura James, Dorothy Lucas, Peggy Murphy, Darren Webb (Executive Headteacher) David Jones, Steven Knowles (Chair), Jane Ritchie (and Darren Webb who was a Governor of both schools). Andy Lacey, Business Manager was also present. The purpose of the meeting was to take comments and answer questions about the consultation proposal. The consultation documents were the same for both schools and they provided information about the proposal and signposts to information. The purpose of the consultation was to consider the future direction of both schools within the education landscape, in particular to consider academisation. LPS was graded as outstanding by Ofsted and there was an expectation that the school would support other schools and work in a collaborative way. While both schools were in agreement that academisation was worth considering no decision had yet been made. Both schools wanted to hear the views from parents, staff and stakeholders on the matter. Questions and comments from parents, governors and staff Question (or comment) by Question (or comment) Response Response by What was the timescale for the change and when would it happen? A small group of governors were leading on this and they would meet to look at the outcomes from the consultation. Both Governing Bodies were meeting on the 11 October 2017 to make a decision whether to go ahead. If the decision was taken to proceed then there was a process to work through and while this would proceed at a reasonable speed the time it would take was unknown. It was thought this could be between six and twelve months. s and staff would be kept up to date as the process evolved. Given the Government had dropped the requirement for all schools to become an academy and there were only 25% of primary schools who had converted to academies what was the benefit This was considered to be a benefit for both schools. Both schools had agreed early on as part of their joint working arrangements that it was not about individual schools, both Governing Bodies were passionate about the same vision. The whole outlook of education had changed and the more academies there were the less the Local Authority (LA) could do for its maintained schools and so there was less choice for LA schools. Kent County Council (KCC) was setting up a private company to provide services to schools and academies. The two schools could lose control of their own destinies. LPS had been approached to support other schools. Executive Headteacher (EHT), Chair of Coxheath (CPS), Chair of LPS 1
for the two schools to convert? The emphasis should be on access to good standards but were there benefits and pitfalls to becoming an academy? What was the experience of other schools? (Another parent commented that it was a worry that good staff get promoted out of the classroom during this question.) Academies do not have to appoint qualified teachers unless required to do so as part of their funding agreement. Would it be a requirement of the funding agreement between CPS and LPS? The two schools wanted to work with schools with a like minded ethos. They did not want to have to work to a different agenda. It would be a risk to the current provision and would be contrary to the option of local stakeholders who wanted the standards to be maintained. The results at LPS were good. It was apparent that no school could stand still, the schools needed to look at leadership and building the staff body, with schools supporting one another. If more primary schools were converting to academy status then both schools needed to be in a position of strength. Recruitment of senior leaders and teachers was an issue. LPS was aware of another school who was considering academisation with another school outside of Kent and neither of the schools wanted to be in this type of arrangement. When the two schools had worked on the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) economy of scale was seen as a benefit but standards were key. Both schools wanted there to be the same standards and ethos in the locality. There were benefits and pitfalls. Since the Ofsted inspection at LPS, the school had been working with a number of schools and been able to develop school leaders and staff. It had given them opportunities they would not have had prior to this. Standards were being monitored and pupil outcomes had improved at LPS since the inspection. There were benefits in succession planning, collaborative working and sharing good practice but this needed to be more structured. There were pitfalls, for example, a drop in standards but this was not happening. For LPS, the challenge was when you get to be outstanding, what next? The governors believed that the children were excited to be in the school and they enjoyed learning. Staff came in and grew with LPS, they were consistently good or outstanding. Yes, losing staff was a pitfall but the school could only respond to what it knew and the educational landscape was changing not standing still. If staff want to be promoted they would go somewhere else so it was better to do all that could be done to retain them. It was a challenge to ensure that there were good and outstanding teachers in place and the EHT set very high standards. The school would not employee anyone who was not highly qualified. If the school did not employ qualified teachers there would be a negative impact on teaching and learning. TUPE would apply to the existing staff bodies. LPS would be keen to expand what it does and deliver initial teacher training. It would encourage staff to come in and undertake training. Teacher recruitment was a real issue. EHT, Chair of LPS, Vice EHT, the Business Manager (BM), 2
Would sharing good practice mean that staff would be moved in year? Would the Trust Board impact on decision making? How does the budget compare in terms of the employment of support staff? How do you know if you had got it right? Have you got value for money with school contracts? Funding was a challenge and with the changes to the national funding formula, and changes to pay and pensions would there be more or less to spend on the children? Given the changes to residential development Coxheath would become the larger school. How would you manage the transition and plan ahead? How would you afford the increasing staff body? There would be one employer which was the same at the moment with KCC as the employer but there would be more freedom for staff to work across the schools. This would be explored to see what was best for all children in both schools. Staff would not be moved midterm or in year. The academy trust had equal responsibilities for both schools to perform well. There would be three tiers of Governance, at the top there would be a Members Board, then a Trustee Board and finally two Local Governing Boards. Both schools would decide on their own destiny. It would be our own academy trust and it would be primary focused. LPS already does a lot of in house HR and Finance work. It was cost efficient and there would be savings so there was money to redirect. We must have two Trustees who had skills in HR and Finance. The schools buy some services from the LA. However, the LA was remodelling and moving to commissioning and setting up a company to sell services to schools. Due to the size of the school we would be able to provide our own services that were more efficient and cheaper. The academy trust would be a charity and it would be subject to some additional costs, e.g. to pay for an audit but at the moment it was paying KCC for some services. The school would be looking at value for money when it comes to renew contracts. The school would be reviewing the skills base of its governors. It would make no difference for schools and academies. It was hard to reconcile the figures arising from the Government s consultation but it was thought that there would be a slight reduction to the budget for LPS and a very slight increase to the budget for CPS. The formula applies nationally and it would have the same impact on schools and academies. The budget for maintained schools was top-sliced by the LA. As an academy you would decide how to use the entire budget. As the school roll increases the budget increases. The allocation of funding would go to the academy trust but both academies would see what they should have and would be able to challenge the Trustees. Recruitment would depend on pupil numbers. It was expected that they would increase at CPS. It was not up to CPS or LPS to provide more places it was up to the LA. CPS had been asked to increase from a one form of entry to a two form of entry and currently it had some mixed classes but key stage one was almost was full. There would be a new two class extension. Numbers would increase as the years go through but it was not thought it would impact on the quality of teaching. EHT, BM, EHT, Chair LPS, BM BM, EHT, Chair CPS 3
What sort of services would it be more advantageous to buy from other providers or provide in house? Were the teachers on board with the school becoming an academy? Were the staff at both schools happy with the proposals? We would look at back office functions and the BM had the capacity to do this. LPS did not use many school improvement services provided by the LA, they used external providers. They also worked with other schools in London and Kent. The school bought in the best services they could regardless of the provider. The LA was mainly providing statutory services. The school wanted the freedom to buy in the best service providers. The uncertainly of the LA was a factor. As more and more schools became academies LPS could be forced to join an existing academy trust. We want to be driving the agenda. The education landscape was substantially different and the direction of travel was much more about resolving things yourself and working collaboratively. The two Governing Bodies clearly see an advantage to becoming a multi academy trust. This was an opportunity for parents, staff and the community to feedback. There had been no feedback, verbal or written, that suggested there were concerns from the staff body. Some staff may have some misgivings about employment terms and conditions but TUPE would apply. There were staff attending the meeting and they were encouraged to respond to the consultation. BM, Chair of CPS, Alan Chell, Chair of LPS, EHT EHT, Chair of LPS Staff Academies had more control over holidays and the school day. If staff had less holiday this may impact on childcare arrangements. This was a concern. What would it mean for the two schools when they did not have to follow the national curriculum and what were the implications for national testing? Would there be a corporate or personal sponsor or if a change was made to the academy trust at a later point to have a corporate or personal sponsor would We do not propose to make any change to the timetable and the term dates would follow the dates published by KCC. Salaries and pensions would be the same. TUPE would apply when staff transfer to the academy trust. Staff were encouraged to raise any concerns. National assessment and Ofsted would remain the same but the school would have more freedom. They would follow the national curriculum but make it more relevant to both schools to develop provision. There would definitely not be a corporate or personal sponsor. CPS had started looking at academies a year ago and this looked to be the best solution. There was no interest in other academy chains as the school did not want to change its ethos. EHT, EHT, Chair of CPS 4
there be a consultation on this? Had consideration been given to the transition and any impact on the school and the staff during the process? The EHT and the BM had been through this process before and if a decision was taken to go ahead there would be a timetable. Each school would get 25k for setting up costs and there was the potential to get a further 45k for school improvement. The BM would have the responsibility for the operational arrangements of the transition so the EHT would be able to continue to focus on school improvement. Teachers would be able to concentrate on standards and pupil outcomes., BM, EHT Next steps The advised on how to respond to the consultation. A response would not be made on an individual basis but stakeholders would be informed of the outcome in due course. An anonymous response could not be considered. She thanked those attending for their input and advised them that if they wished to raise any further questions then to please do so. A second consultation meeting would be held on Thursday, 28 September 2017 at CPS. The consultation period ended on 2 October 2017. The meeting finished at 8 pm. 5