Agenda item

Officers delivered a presentation to the Committee on School Organisation. Key points highlighted in the discussion included:

·       In October 2022, the Executive approved several big plans that drove the borough’s educational outcomes.

·       Educational excellence would be driven through the education plan.

·       It was also an ambition to have inclusive, welcoming schools as set out in SEND strategy.

·       There were significant challenges, namely that there were too few children for too many places.

·       The school organisation plan was about reconfiguring schools to better reflect school numbers.

·       One of the plans going through was the asset management strategy, in which the Council considered the use of the actual buildings that remained, across several departments.

·       An increasing number of the borough’s schools was struggling financially, but the problem was not unique to Islington. Central Government funded schools on a per child value, and each vacant place represented a loss in income to the school. Other pressures not budgeted for included maintenance and wage cost increases.

·       Islington’s deficit would be worse were it not for surpluses at some schools.

·       There had been a sharp decline in pupil numbers in the past two years particularly, with the context including cost of living, low birth rates, families moving out of London, and housing.

·       There were 430 spare places, across reception classes, equating to 14 forms of entry.

·       The plan was being implemented in phases. Phase 1 included the amalgamation of two in south of the borough, Copenhagen Primary and Vittoria Primary. The plan also included the removal of six and a half forms of entry borough-wide, but due to the decision made regarding Pooles Park Primary School, this had reduced to 5.5.

·       The decline in pupil numbers were projected to become more acute. The Council planned for primary school places by dividing borough into six planning areas, in line with Department for Education (DfE) policy. The Barnsbury planning area was the most impacted (south).

·       Data informing decision making was obtained from a number of sources which included birth data, the Greater London Authority (GLA), the Office for National Statistics (2021 census), and other Council services.

·       The guidance says that surplus should between 5 and 10%.

·       DfE guidance, which the Council has to operate within, had a presumption to not close schools, and fully address other options to address surplus capacity before moving to closure. This included looking at reducing admission numbers and merging schools through federation, and only when all have been exhausted can closure be considered.

·       The quality of education, parental preference, and financial viability; whether the school was a faith school or the only school in the community, were all taken into consideration. In the case of faith schools, the diocese can also propose closure, in addition to the local authority.

·       Academies and free schools are their own admission authorities. Their expansion plans can affect local authority planning.

·       In the amalgamation of Vittoria and Copenhagen Primary Schools, the service first had to conduct an informal consultation for four weeks, which was extended to ensure community had enough time to consider the proposals. The proposals then went to the Executive for the representation period, for four weeks, then another paper had to go back to the Executive for a formal decision. The Copenhagen Primary School site was identified as larger with greater flexibility and thus chosen to account for potential, unforeseen upticks in the school population.

·       Islington was sharing best practice with colleagues, including its approach and methodology, which had also garnered interest from London Councils.

·       There was a big drift of 20% between primary and secondary school pupil numbers. Officers said they were fortunate to have additional resource currently conducting a media campaign on why Islington was the best choice for education, and engaging with families, to encourage them to stay with us. In terms of families choosing private, secondary education, it was around 6%, in line with national data.

·       Camden had a larger independent sector, leading to a larger drift between primary and secondary school.

·       It was noted that much of the drift in Islington came from parental choice and perception. It was said that each secondary school had a unique selling point that could attract or repel families. Officers were surveying schools about what it was that was driving parental choice. All Islington schools were rated good or outstanding except one. However, perception was a strong factor, and the ability for a school to offer the diverse curriculum that can attract students could be compromised by low interest / student numbers, because of the value attached to each student.

·       The objective of the media campaign was getting schools to talk about the offer they provided and reinforcing positive messages that didn’t often get highlighted. Examples were cited of other local authorities celebrating school results and achievements at Town Halls. It was also noted that there was sometimes perception among parents and families that schools in the neighbouring boroughs were better.

·       There was not a scientific tool in weighing deficit versus quality outcomes, it was nuanced, and some schools were managing the deficit whereas others were not.

·       Officers were having conversations with several Council departments such as Housing, so that issues were not being addressed in isolation.

·       All types of schools were included in calculations.

·       The Council had recruited to a specialist Elective Home Education (EHE) post. Students lost to EHE did have a financial impact.

·       In Islington, SEND educational outcomes were better than national averages, year on year. Islington was three times better in term of its children going on to employment, education and/or training.

·       Islington was adopting a status-neutral approach, centred on outcomes for children rather than the type of school. However, there was agreement among the borough’s academies to reduce their PAN, but that still needed to go through the due process.

·       Long-term, the situation was worsening, according to the data. The GLA data in particular was up to 2030. Islington had a surplus of capacity that needed to be reduced in that time, but there were a number of variables that could disrupt that.

·       Officers were looking at the communities that were not accessing the Council’s childcare offer. Particular focus was centred on the Turkish, Cypriot and Black Caribbean communities. It was noted that the sooner the families were able to access childcare, the more positively the child would be able to progress through their education.