Agenda item

The Chair opened the item for discussion first by noting to officers, that the Committee were interested to hear about progress on the ground with specific schools. In the discussion on the item, the following points were raised:

·   Officers highlighted that plans to reorganise, amalgamate and close schools were very difficult decisions and accepted that these would not  be popular, but that the feedback from schools  was broadly understanding of the rationale behind the proposals. In terms of the specific schools affected, officers stated that the proposals had understandably not landed particularly well, given the impact on those schools and their school community. Broadly, however, schools were said to have preferred that  the council was taking decisions swiftly, given the urgency of the situation, with factors such as the cost of living, low birth rate, and the housing crisis, all contributing to falling pupil numbers, the impact of which was being felt by schools financially.

·   Officers were mindful that the conversations they had with affected schools were sensitive and approached it as such, given the direct impact on those schools’ staff and families.

·   Members were told, that while Islington as the local authority can propose closures for its maintained schools, there were complexities regarding faith schools. While officers always aimed to work in partnership with the relevant diocese, there had been instances where this relationship had been more challenging when considering possible school mergers and closures. 

·   Additional complexities included schools obtaining academy sponsors/status. While officers had nurtured relationships with academy boards in the borough, they had no authority to direct academies to close or reform, which impacted on the council’s ability to take a strategic approach to building resilience in local schools.

·   Officers reiterated that these proposals were made with reluctance, and in response to falling pupils in inner London. A significant number of the borough’s schools were one form entry. It was stressed that it was the absolute last resort to propose a school for closure, and there would have been both a strong evidence base in support of the measure, and an exhaustion of all other options before taking this step. Many factors would be taken into account, including capacity in neighbouring schools and the resilience across the entire school estate.

·   In response to members’ questions regarding the inclusion factor, officers stated that they were mindful that most schools in the borough had high numbers of students with SEND  or in receipt of free school meals, and carefully considered the impact to them in their proposals. Officers went on to state that they had explored several variables that could help address the impact on inclusion, but no option was without challenges.

·   The programme was currently in Phase Two and the timescale that officers were working towards, was to take forward the initial proposals. Every school had been RAG-rated, and a letter issued to each, confirming their individual status.  It often had to be explained that a red rating wasn’t an immediate precursor to closure and meetings had taken place with schools that had been rated red, wherein officers would explain the data behind that classification as well as what would need to happen for a school to be proposed for closure.

·   Officers confirmed that the list of each school’s RAG status was being withheld from public disclosure due to it being a sensitive matter for the schools, their staff and the local communities concerned. There was also the risk of this data being misinterpreted, given that there had been confusion around red ratings. The letters that had been sent to schools with this information had been sent confidentially.

·   The financial position of the borough’s schools had the potential to impact the wider Council finances. The entire school estate had been mapped, in terms of financial position and viability as well as the offer. In the proposals, consideration had also been given about how the schools estate fit in with the wider corporate portfolio and potential alternate uses.

·   Officers stated that they had to follow the Department for Education (DfE) consultation process, wherein decisions could be made only after the four-week formal consultation period had ended.

·   Members made note that despite the procedures Islington had to follow, the local authority could still be emotionally intelligent in its conduct, which officers insisted that it was. In response they also stated that officers had shown resilience and maturity while carrying out this challenging work,  and that to nurture positive working relationships in the community, it required all sides to approach the issue of school closures and amalgamations with maturity and understanding. 

·   Members made note that they did not want the proposals to exacerbate the issue of there being less families in Islington.

·   Members highlighted that while there had been positive news in the local press about the implementation, a recent council report had acknowledged that there had been difficulties on transparency. In response, officers stated that they were investing a lot of time in engagement, which not just a matter of sending letters, but also having difficult and sensitive conversations with affected parties in the school and wider community.

·   Officers stated that some of the conversations with the individual school governing bodies, was to encourage them to manage their resources more tightly. The scale of deficits in some schools were said to be bigger than the entire budget of that individual school. It was also acknowledged by officers that while the local authority could have taken more assertive decisions earlier in the process, the governing bodies of individual schools held responsibility for the direct management of their school’s budget, with the local authority only having broad oversight. There had been a lack of a steer at a high level from the Department for Education (DfE) as to how early or fast to be  taking decisions on the viability of schools,  and it was a similar situation facing London’s local authorities.

RESOLVED:

That the item be noted.