Agenda item

The Chair outlined that following the meeting of the Executive on Thursday 8 February 2024, the Monitoring Officer had confirmed that a valid notice of call-in was received regarding the decision made on the ‘Proposal on the Future of Duncombe and Montem Primary Schools’, and that as this decision related to an education function, the Monitoring Officer had, in accordance with paragraph 66.5 (c) of the Council’s Constitution, referred the call-in to this committee for consideration. The Chair then highlighted the options available to the committee. These were:

·       To not agree with the call-in and to uphold the decision made by the Executive, in which case it can be implemented following this meeting.

·       To agree, at least in part, with the call-in and refer the decision back to the Executive with recommendations that they should take into consideration when they review their original decision.

The Chair further outlined the procedure of the call-in and formally moved the motion to consider the item for call-in. Following this, the Chair invited the lead signatory of the call-in, Councillor Hamdache, to address the committee in support of the call-in. The representation was delivered jointly with Councillor Russell and included the following points:

·       Councillor Hamdache stated that the Department for Education’s intervention to grant Pooles Park Primary School academy status had left the Council in a difficult position, given the plans to close it as part of the school organisation plan. It was also stated in the representation that government policy had compounded the issue, as had an application from a further separate school in the borough, applying for academy status, which would affect school place planning going forward. Further points made to members included that Montem Primary School was a borough-leading ARP (Additionally Resourced Provision), that excelled in supporting disadvantaged children including those whose first language was not English, and that the decision on the future of the school had been questioned by parents and teachers alike. Councillor Hamdache made further points to members, including that Hackney, in dealing with their own plans, had bought in an independent body to assist with engagement; that the Executive’s decision on the proposal for Duncombe and Montem would also have the effect of defederating Drayton Park Primary School; that it was the view of parents and teachers that the consultation from the Council had been insufficient and called for a pause to start a participatory process; and that this call-in was an important opportunity for the Council to consider parents’ concerns.

·       Councillor Russell stated that the number of children in Islington was decreasing, and the Council was at a critical point wherein some schools across the borough would need to close, but that a conversation should be had with every school in the borough about how best to protect the education of its children. Councillor Russell closed with further statements that the community of Drayton Park Primary School had not been properly consulted in the process and that members should refer the decision back to the Executive for further consideration and to engage with the community about what the next steps were.

The Chair then invited the, the Executive Member for Children, Young People & Families, Councillor Safi-Ngongo, to address the committee and outline the case for the Executive’s decision. During this, the following points were made:

·       The Executive Member stated that the issue underpinning the decision was a London-wide problem, with factors including falling rolls and population changes and that the Council’s approach has been to safeguard education provision for the borough’s children and young people by engaging in full collaboration with headteachers and governors, culminating in a borough wide strategy agreed by the Executive in October 2022. It was also stated to members that the Education Plan was presented to this community three times, citing this as an example of how seriously the Council took the education of its children and young people, that every decision was taken with the benefit of the borough’s children in mind.  The Council had recognised the significant numbers of children with special educational needs (SEND) across its schools and developed the SEND strategy to address this.  Councillor Safi-Ngongo also made further points to members, including that 96% of Islington’s were rated “Good”, that the plans were being delivered in two phases for which the borough had been divided into six different planning areas, and that 60% of the Council’s schools were projecting deficits which would equate to a £15 million deficit by 2026. Councillor Safi-Ngongo made further statements to members, including that doing nothing was not an option as schools would be left unable to pay staff or provide services; that the schools themselves were asking the Council to act faster to safeguard a good education provision across the borough.   Drayton Park Primary School had financial difficulties  which were projected to increase by 2025, and  the Council would work with the school to support them. Councillor Safi-Ngongo closed by urging members to consider the matter seriously, stressing that the decision was taken for the benefit of the children in the borough.

 
The committee were invited to ask questions of either Leader of the Opposition or the Executive Member for Children Young People & Families, with the Chair highlighting that some questions could be referred to the Corporate Director of Children’s Services where required:

·       Members questioned as to whether a lift would be installed to the Duncombe Primary School site, to which it was confirmed that if the decision were to go ahead, then this would be added.

·       Members questioned the call-in signatories’ proposal to bring in the use of an independent body, specifically querying as to what type of organisation that might be and what intervention would they deliver that hadn’t already been done so within the plan. In response, Councillor Hamdache stated that Hackney Council had bought in an independent consultancy to add depth and capacity to the engagement of similarly affected schools in their borough. Councillor Hamdache referred to Drayton Park Primary School’s financial deficit, stating that the proposals would worsen their finances and that the school had not been consulted adequately in the proposals, which would necessitate the need for further engagement to take place on the entire borough-wide process.

·       Members expressed the view that from the official documents, Hackney’s use of consultants appeared to be more process-based than strategic.

·       Members stated that they had been reassured that the buildings were protected for educational use by statute but sought clarification as to why the Duncombe site had been chosen over Montem. In response, members were advised by both the Corporate Director for Children’s Services and Executive Member for Children, Young People & Families, that the decision had been reached based on feasibility studies of both sites, factors in this evidence base including pollution, location and population in the vicinity, as well as the financial feasibility. Statistically, in terms of achievement there was little difference between the two schools and that this was not a significant factor of the decision, and that the decision had been reached in consultation with headteachers.

·       Members asked what the consequences would be on delaying the proposals. In response, members were advised by the Corporate Director of Children’s Services that pausing the borough-wide process for these two schools (Duncombe and Montem) would double the deficit for both of them and that doing nothing would result in a £15 million deficit across the school estate.  There were currently 27 forms of entry surplus, which was the equivalent to 810 spare places, which in-turn equated to annual financial loss of £5.3 million. It was also stated to members that headteachers had urged the Council to address the matter faster; that the reason the plans had been phased was so that it could delivered in an organised manner, and that the consultancies used by other councils had been done so to help meet compliance rather than assist with the process.

·       Members noted the remarks attributed to the Mayor of London that there was concern that councils were making long term decisions on what could be short term trends and urged councils not to make permanent decisions regarding falling birth rates.The Executive Member for Children, Young People & Families was asked if  they were in agreement with this position. In response, members were told that it was a London-wide issue; that neighbouring boroughs such as Camden were following a similar approach, and that further afield, other local authorities were consulting Islington for best practice. The Executive Member went on to state that the problem needed to be addressed now and had been compounded by government policy.

·       Members noted that there were also plans for Samuel Rhodes School to relocate to a different premises, to which the Executive Member for Children, Young People & Families advised that this was separate to organisational planning and was to do with the suitability of the lift and facilities at the site which were deemed not fit for purpose for the school’s needs.

·       Members sought clarity on the governing arrangements should the proposal go ahead, to which the Director for Learning & Achievement advised that as an amalgamation rather than a closure, which was stated to be the Department for Education’s (DfE) preferred approach in circumstances such as these, the current governors would remain; but Drayton Park Primary School, which was not within the remit of this proposal, would be defederated and have its own governing arrangements.

·       Members sought clarification on how the Council would help Drayton Park Primary School become more financially sustainable. In response, the Director for Learning & Achievement informed members that Drayton Park had one of the most significant deficits in the borough and officers were already working with them to help achieve a balanced budget.

·       Members noted that there had been concern among constituents about the potential spread of amalgamations and sought assurances that could be given to them. In response, the Director for Learning & Achievement advised that the situation was being looked at strategically, that schools were being included in the journey and where action was required, this would be done in conjunction with them.

·       Members sought clarification on the risk that families would jump from school to school due to perceived instability. In response, the Director for Learning & Achievement stated that the Admissions team will be supporting parents; that students of Duncombe and Montem will have a place at the merged school; and that the merger of, rather than the closure of the two good schools would enable the Council to draw from expertise among the staff already delivering high levels of education.

·       Members noted that they had received considerable public feedback regarding this call-in of the Executive’s decision and that much of it expressed goodwill to the two schools affected by the proposal and concern about the provision for SEND children, to which members then asked for assurances that these children would be served well at the merged school. In response, the Executive Member stated that this was also raised during the consultation as a matter of concern by families, that meetings had taken place with families of SEND children, that detailed plans were in place to help the Council ensure their needs were met and that the teachers of both schools would also help maintain the provision at the merged school.

Members of the public were invited to ask questions of either Councillor Hamdache or Councillor Safi-Ngongo, with the Chair again stating that some questions could be referred to the Corporate Director of Children’s Services where required:

·       The Member of Parliament for Islington North, Jeremy Corbyn MP, noted that both schools were successful and asked whether the special needs provision can be sufficiently catered to at the Duncombe site, and also questioned the long-term use for the buildings that were surplus to requirements in conjunction with the wider school estate, and what was being done to support families from the Andover estate who were some of the borough’s most disadvantaged residents. In response, the Corporate Director of Children’s Services stated that there would be a transition plan for SEND students and their families; that there would be safeguarding of the staff delivering SEND provision at the amalgamated school; and that families had real choice in terms of education, rather than just preference as had been in previous times and therefore it was an expectation that not all students would elect to transfer to the amalgamated site. The Corporate Director also stated that in terms of the building estate, the Council was mindful of future population changes; that officers would be attending a workshop with the Department for Education to look at policy, resources, system change and housing; and that one of the uses the Councils was considering for the Montem site was the expansion of family hubs. 

·       Sophie McNeill, a Parent Governor of Drayton Park Primary School, asked for clarity on the future governing arrangements should the proposals go ahead, particularly the number of positions available, given that it would result in the defederation of the Edventure Collaborative that currently governs the schools; on the timeframe for the changes outlined in the proposal for the implementation of the proposals, given that it would need to be in place for the new school year and on the financial position of Montem Primary School. In response, the Director for Learning & Achievement stated that adopting the current timeline would put the amalgamated school in a much better financial position, as although the deficit at Montem had seen a slight improvement, the long-term cumulative deficit would make it difficult for the school to continue to offer a diverse curriculum; it was also stated that projections had been based on information that the schools had provided to officers, and that in terms of the governing arrangements, the Council would work to ensure vacancies were filled and current governors were supported.

The committee were invited to make comments in support of either the call-in or of the Executive’s original decision. This included the following statements:

·       That among the members of the Children’s Services Scrutiny Committee there was a wealth of experience in education and the public sector, and that should they agree with any part of the call-in, the committee should vote to refer the decision back to the Executive.

·       That after listening to all of the representations about merging two high performing schools and an excellent special needs provision, there should be more focus on the opportunity this presented, to shape an even more successful combined school.

·       That there was a clear strength of feeling in the community about this proposal and that retaining the Duncombe name didn’t give the impression of a combined community as it erased the longstanding Montem identity.

·       That there were valued communities across the borough with whom the Council had consulted and school leaders whom conversations had been held with, which had helped ensure a sustainable solution and that it would be financially irresponsible to delay the proposal further. 

Councillor Hamdache and the Executive Member for Children, Young People & Families were invited to make their final statements to the committee:

·       Councillor Hamdache stated that they recognised that the Council was in a difficult position and thanked officers for providing clarity, but also stated that Drayton Park Primary School was facing financial difficulties and had not been consulted or considered in the scope of decision and that the concern was in only looking at Montem and Duncombe alone, the impact to Drayton Park had not been considered, which was material for a rethink of the Executive’s decision. In closing, it was further stated that given the ambitious timeline, should the members consider the transition of SEND children or the planned implementation of the proposals to be of concern, to refer the decision back to the Executive.

·       The Executive Member for Children, Young People & Families stated that closing schools was always a last resort and that the decision to merge these two schools had not been rushed, that meetings had taken place with headteachers about projected deficits in their schools and means of addressing it; that transitions in the amalgamation of Vittoria and Copenhagen schools had been handled effectively, that ultimately doing nothing was not an option, with every decision made being done so with children and young people in mind.

The Chair moved recommendation 2.1 a) to a vote; that the Children’s Services Scrutiny Committee does not object to the decision in question, in which case the decision shall take effect on the date of this meeting.

The motion was put to a vote and CARRIED.

RESOLVED

That the Children’s Services Scrutiny Committee does not object to the Executive’s decision on the Proposal on the Future of Duncombe and Montem Primary Schools and that the decision is upheld with immediate effect.