Agenda item

Officers delivered a verbal update on the School Organisation plan. In the update and discussion, the following points were raised:

• Officers stated that the Council was in the consultation period on proposals regarding the future of two of the borough’s primary schools as part of Phase Three of the School Organisation plan. These were Highbury Quadrant Primary School and St Jude’s & St Paul’s Primary School. As of this meeting there had been approximately 150 representations for Highbury Quadrant and approximately 100 for St Jude’s & St Paul’s. Following the consultation there would be a report capturing the data, which would then help to shape the recommendations that the Executive will decide upon in February 2025.
• Officers stated that Phase Three had a focus on reducing surplus places across the school estate and that London faced serious challenges in education space as a result of lower birth rates, falling rolls and the housing crisis. Officers stated that data from the Greater London Authority (GLA) indicated that inner London would continue to face significant challenges on school place surpluses, a reverse on previous generations where there had not been enough school places.
• Officers stated that there was an average of 20% surplus places in primary estate and the pressures were moving into the secondary estate, and that on average each surplus place equated to approximately £6,000 of funding being lost, as DfE funding was on a per-child basis. Officers stated that they would have to consider whether schools could then afford the resources to ensure that students’ school experiences were as positive as possible.
• Members noted that they appreciated the clarity in which the consultations explained how the schools were chosen for this phase.
• In response to members questions regarding whether there was more proposals for Phase Three, officers confirmed that only this proposal was the only initiative earmarked for decision.
• In response to questions about lessons learned from Phases One and Two, specifically on communication, the Executive Member stated that many lessons had been taken onboard, and that given no school had been closed in the borough for over twenty years, was a learning curve for all involved, and feedback had informed an even more collaborative and inclusive approach to this phase.
• Officers stated that while there had been changes in the Department for Education (DfE) and regarding SEND, no additional funding had been granted for schools overall. Officers reiterated that in the outcome that schools are closed, the funding follows the child to their new education provision, including specialist provisions.
• Members stated that previous phases had been a traumatic process which notably affected headteachers, governors and staff as well as families and asked as to what was being done to further support them and include them within the process. In response, the Executive Member stated that proposals within each phase of the School Organisation plan were a last resort following months of informal engagement to find a solution to avoid this process, and that it was not the Council’s goal to close its schools. Further to the Executive Member’s response, officers stated that there was learning with each phase, but that there would inevitably be a feeling of hurt where a school had to be considered as part of a proposal within the plan. Officers reiterated the Executive Member’s response that they tried to mitigate such measures early and informally, but that ultimately, they were following the framework mandated by the Department for Education (DfE).
• Officers stated that planning groups were kept together to ensure children not having to travel too far to new provisions.
• In response to questions from members regarding why closure was a proposal instead of amalgamation, officers stated that the purpose of informal consultation was to canvas views and that further consideration would be given to what is proposed before a final recommendation is made to the Council’s Executive.
• Members asked for clarification regarding the situation with Samuel Rhodes School. In response, officers confirmed that the pupil numbers had reduced to such that it the school approached officers to report a change of need. Officers then stated that it was deemed possible to accommodate the school’s pupils within the provisions elsewhere in the borough, specifically Richard Cloudesley, which met the needs of these children.
• Officers clarified that within the current DfE framework, local authorities were not in a position to open new schools.
• Officers stated that Islington had 1% of its SEND children access the non maintained sector out of the borough, compared with 8% nationally. Islington was said to have among the highest percentage of SEND students overall, nationally, but officers stated that Islington had a very competitive offer that compared favourably, in terms of SEND places in the maintained sector for SEND places. Officers also stated that Islington was one of the few local authorities to practice improvement partners.
• Members expressed that lived experiences should be considered alongside the data, and noted that they didn’t feel sufficient data was available on SEND to consider next steps.

ACTION

Officers to invite members to the SEND roundtable discussion in December 2024.

ACTION

Officers to incorporate the work of the PRU in its provision to the Alternative Provision item on the committee’s work programme.

ACTION

Officers to share with members the DfE guidance on opening/closing schools.

RESOLVED

That the update is noted.