Cabinet Member for Education and Schools Ref No. ES09(08/09) Proposed for Shoreham-by-Sea and Southwick: Proposed Publication of Statutory Notice Key Decision: Yes Part I Report by Executive Director for Adults and Electoral Divisions: Children and the Head of Academies Sompting, Lancing, Saltings, Shoreham, Kingston Buci, Southwick

Executive Summary

This report outlines the present position concerning the potential establishment of an Academy at the present site of King’s Manor Community College. This school is able to seek Academy status under the national criteria applicable since May 2007. This was reinforced by its inclusion in June in the national list of schools requiring support as part of the Government’s ‘National Challenge’ initiative. Initially, Woodard Schools agreed to work as lead sponsor with the County Council acting as co-sponsor for Academies on the sites of King’s Manor Community College, Boundstone Community College and Littlehampton Community School. Three ‘Expressions of Interest’ were duly approved by Lord Adonis, the Minister responsible for the national Academies programme, in July 2007. In May this year it was announced that The Trust (ULT) had agreed to take over from Woodard Schools as the sponsor of the proposed Academy for Shoreham-by-Sea and Southwick. ULT is the sponsor of due to open in Midhurst from January 2009.

Feasibility projects have been underway since November 2007. The Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) has supported these feasibility projects with a view to the proposed Academies replacing the present schools from September 2009. The feasibility project for King’s Manor has progressed more slowly than those for the other proposed Academies which were completed in July 2008. Nonetheless, it is still intended that an Academy should also open on the present King’s Manor site in September 2009 with new buildings completed in the 2011-2012 school year.

The formal consultation process relating to the closure of the present school in order to make way for the proposed Academy began at the end of January 2008. The feasibility work for King’s Manor Community College resulted in consultation meetings for Shoreham taking place on 9 and 16 October 2008. An independent consultation has been undertaken on behalf of ULT and DCSF by DJB consultancy. The initial public consultation interim report is attached as an appendix to this report. It is clear that there is strong support for the proposal in the wider community.

The proposed closure of the present school would be subject to the successful conclusion of the feasibility project which is due for completion by the end of November, and to subsequent approvals from the DCSF. If Woodard Schools, the County Council and the DCSF then agree to proceed, a funding agreement would be signed to provide for implementation by the agreed date.

Recommendation:

That the Cabinet Member endorses: 1). The decision to publish a statutory notice at the earliest possible date relating to the proposed closure of King’s Manor Community College with effect from 31st August 2009. 2). The replacement of King’s Manor Community College on the same site from 1st September 2009 by a new Academy, subject to the successful completion of the present feasibility project and the necessary approvals from the Department for Children, Schools and Families.

1. Background

1.1 On 30th March 2007 the Office of the Schools Commissioner confirmed that Woodard Schools and the then Department for Education and Skills (DfES) were committed to delivering two possible Academy projects at Boundstone and King’s Manor Community Colleges. At that point, Littlehampton Community School no longer had a prospective external lead sponsor, as required if Academy status is to be pursued. By 14th May 2007 Woodard Schools had confirmed that it was also willing to act as sponsor for an Academy in Littlehampton.

1.2 Initial work on an ‘Expression of Interest’ for each of the three schools was already underway at this point, with a view to preparing submissions to the newly formed Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF). A number of partner organisations, such as Sussex Learning and Skills Council and the diocesan authorities, were alerted to this work prior to the Cabinet Member for Children and Young People’s Services announcing the proposals to the County Council on 25th May 2007.

1.4 The three West Sussex/Woodard Schools proposals were submitted to the DCSF on 18th July 2007 and each was approved by Lord Adonis, the responsible minister, on 26th July, with Woodard Schools proposed as lead sponsor and the County Council as co-sponsor.

1.5 At the end of October 2007, with the agreement of Woodard Schools and the County Council, the DCSF appointed Mouchel Parkman as the project management company to support the three feasibility projects for proposed Academies in Lancing, Shoreham and Littlehampton. Since that time, Woodard Schools and the County Council as sponsors, supported by Mouchel and the DCSF, have been undertaking detailed feasibility work in relation to each proposed Academy in terms of an education brief and related design proposals. This work was completed for Boundstone Community College and Littlehampton Community School by the end of the summer term 2008 when funding agreements were signed by Woodard Schools and the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families.

1.6 On 30th January 2008, the Director for Children and Young People’s Services circulated a letter and detailed briefing note to all school staff in the three schools concerned. This initiated the statutory consultation process in relation to their conditional closure, although in the case of the proposed Shoreham Academy it has not been possible to arrange public consultation meetings before the first part of the Autumn Term 2008. Such closures of ‘predecessor schools’ can only take place upon the successful conclusion of a feasibility project and the subsequent signing of a funding agreement relating to the agreed characteristics of the Academy.

1.7 On 16th May 2008 parents, staff, governors and partner agencies were alerted through a letter from Mrs. Heidi Brown, the Headteacher of King’s Manor Community College, to the fact that after careful consideration by all parties, it had been concluded that an alternative sponsor to Woodard Schools should be sought in the best interests of King’s Manor students, staff, parents and the wider communities of Shoreham and Southwick. She explained that “the governors and senior leadership of the school are still in favour of the school being an Academy and following discussions, The United Learning Trust (ULT) has agreed to act as our sponsor”. The Headteacher went on to confirm that “the University of Chichester has agreed that it will be working closely with ULT, as an educational partner, to help achieve the best possible outcomes for local young people through the Academy initiative”.

2. Discussion

2.1 On 14 May 2007, the Government published its paper ‘400 Academies: a Prospectus for Sponsors and Local Authorities’. The prospectus sets out updated information about future Academies. It makes it clear, for example, that under the new arrangements Academies would usually be jointly commissioned by the Department and the Local Authority on a partnership basis. The DfES emphasised that “Academies are not ‘maintained’ by the Local Authority in the traditional manner, but are nonetheless part of the wider family of schools and other educational institutions in their area and we strongly encourage appropriate co-operation... Academies play an important part in Local Authority planning for Building Schools for the Future, driving school improvement and reform alongside the provision of new or refurbished school buildings.”

2.2 With initial support from the ‘Expression of Interest’ consultant appointed by the then DfES in May 2007, much work was undertaken towards the end of the summer term last year by Woodard Schools, the County Council and the schools concerned to develop a strong overall vision for each of the three proposed Academies. This has greatly assisted the development of well-advanced education briefs for the feasibility projects relating to the proposed Academies for Lancing and Littlehampton. Similar work has also been undertaken by the United Learning Trust and the County Council to modify and enhance the initial work undertaken for the proposed Shoreham Academy.

2.3 Only when the feasibility project has been concluded successfully, could the DCSF enter into a funding agreement for a new Academy in Shoreham. This agreement would set out the essential characteristics of the Academy (size, location, subject specialisms, admissions, age range, special educational needs and governance arrangements) and confirm the sponsorship commitments.

2.4 It is recognised both by the DCSF and the United Learning Trust that, whilst Academies are in fact independent state schools, the County Council wishes local Academies to be part of the West Sussex Children’s Trust. This is a fundamental element of our approach and one that would foster a different form of diversity for the community served by the Academy. A degree of local autonomy would be available to the Academy which would enable it to pursue a range of community benefits. However, this would also allow the Academy to work within a wider common purpose on behalf of local children, young people and families. These expectations and others relating to the relationship between the Academy and the County Council as children’s services authority would be covered through a formal partnership agreement between the County Council and the United Learning Trust.

2.5 The overall vision of the United Learning Trust as sponsor for the proposed Academy, has benefited from the contribution made by the headteacher, other senior managers and governors of the school in the summer term 2008 prior to a revised ‘Expression of Interest’ being drawn up as part of renewed feasibility work. This vision encompasses the raising of educational standards, enhanced opportunities and the achievement of the Every Child Matters outcomes for local young people, as well as local community needs.

2.6 Close links will be maintained between the Academy and neighbouring primary, special and early years settings, Northbrook College, the Adur County Local Committee, Adur District Council, the Adur In Partnership Board and partner agencies such as the Sussex Learning and Skills Council, the Church of Diocesan Board of Education for Chichester, the Catholic Diocese of Arundel and Brighton and local community groups.

3. Proposals

3.1 Section 4 below sets out the outcomes of the recent consultation process about the conditional closure of King’s Manor Community College in order to make way for an Academy next September. Taking account of these outcomes, it is recommended that a statutory notice is published at the earliest possible date in relation to these proposals. The proposed closure is conditional upon the successful conclusion of the feasibility project for the Academy.

3.2 There are a number of concerns, as is usually the case with such far-reaching proposals, within both parent and staff groups about the practical implications of the proposed move from local authority control to Academy status. The key issues arising from the consultation as set out in section 4 will be the subject of further discussions later this term. Meetings will take place as need be for staff, governors, students, prospective pupils, staff and governors from other local schools, partner agencies and the wider community.

3.3 The progress made in tackling the range of implementation issues considered by these groups will be shared with the Cabinet Member at the end of the statutory consultation process. This will enable full consideration to be given to the outcomes of further discussions in the community prior to a key decision being taken about the proposed replacement of the present school from 1st September 2009 by an Academy sponsored by The United Learning Trust.

4. Consultation

4.1 Formal public consultations about the detailed proposals emerging from the feasibility projects began for the Shoreham and Southwick from 1st October to 7th November with meetings for stakeholders and the public taking place on 9th and 16th October 2008 respectively. An independent consultation was undertaken by DJB consultancy on behalf of ULT and the DCSF. This extensive consultation included a separate consultation document, focus groups and an independent survey of parents. The final report will be available to the Cabinet Member for the end of any period of statutory notices in January 2009. The interim report states its findings in paragraph 2.2.2 –

The overall attitude to the academy proposal was broadly welcoming by the majority of stakeholders, with very enthusiastic support from a wide cross- section of people interviewed. The academy proposal was particularly welcomed by staff, who work in poor environmental conditions. Parents, staff and governors of KMCC and significant key stakeholders in the County expressed genuine support for the proposal to close KMCC and replace it with an academy.

A minority, however, felt the proposed change was a ‘fait accompli’, and queried the purpose of a consultation if, as they felt, it was ‘a done deal’. The majority of staff, both teaching and support, although generally positive about the proposal, expressed concern that the academy ‘route’ was the only one chosen to achieve the desired improvements for the school i.e. new buildings, reinvigorated ethos, and to accelerate the current achievements. Parents, Governors and staff all recognise that KMCC is now an improving school and a key concern was that of maintaining the momentum of the improvements. They sought assurances from ULT that the proposed changes would be designed to accelerate these improvements.

In general, the consultation was showing strong support for an Academy to maintain the momentum of improvement at the current school.

4.2 Since May 2007 a range of interested parties has been alerted to the initial work underway in relation to the key proposals for each Academy. Early support was secured from partner agencies as follows: • The neighbouring Local Children’s Services Authority (Brighton and Hove); • The governing body; • The Sussex Learning and Skills Council; and • The Church of England Diocesan Board of Education.

4.3 The Chair of Governors has been aware from an early stage of the Academy proposal and a meeting of the governing body took place prior to the submission to the DCSF in July 2007, with its support, of the ‘Expression of Interest’ for the proposed Academy. This support and that of local members and the other statutory agencies, which has been a key feature of this initiative, has centered upon the new opportunities which it is believed an Academy would bring for young people, their families and their local community.

4.4 The following groups have also been given the opportunity to comment upon the proposed development of this Academy on the south coast and have been included in the widespread distribution of the consultation booklet issued on 1 October 2008:

• The executives of the secondary, primary and special school headteachers; • The Church of England Diocesan Board of Education; • The Catholic Diocese; • Local County Councillors and Members of Parliament; • The West Sussex Governors’ Association; • Adur District Council; • The Adur County Local Committee; • The Adur In Partnership Board; • Local Further Education Colleges and Universities; • The Joint Consultative Committee of local teacher associations; and • UNISON, which represents many non-teaching staff in our schools.

4.5 During the week beginning 6th October 2008 over 4,000 copies of a consultation booklet entitled ‘An Academy in Shoreham by Sea’ was distributed across the Shoreham-by-Sea and Southwick. In addition to the affected schools themselves, the following wider distribution took place:

Feeder Primary Schools South Coast Special Schools Libraries Helppoints Local Secondary Schools All headteachers across ‘Area B’ schools Sports Centres Health Centres and Primary Care NHS Trusts Local Colleges Local Universities

4.6 District and County Councillors and Members of Parliament who have been regularly updated with progress since May 2007 were also included in the distribution of the consultation booklet.

4.7 On 9th October 2008 a total of 51 staff and governors and then on 16th October 86 members of the public attended consultation meetings at King’s Manor Community College.

4.8 The format for the public meeting was such that all members of the community who attended were given the opportunity to raise a wide range of questions and issues. They were encouraged to pose what they considered to be the most important questions to members of the panel. This included the headteacher and chair of governors plus the Cabinet Advisor for Children’s Projects and the National Education Advisor and Projects Manager of The United Learning Trust. The most frequently asked questions across the two communities are set out below:

i) Process

 Why can we not introduce the new Academy before September 2009?  Will the name of the school change?  What is in the Academy initiative for ULT?  What will be the make-up of the Governing Body and how will it be selected?

ii) Policies

 Will the uniform policy change and will sixth formers be expected to wear uniforms?  Will current programmes for gifted and talented students and those with additional needs be continued?  What will the class organisation be and will there be a limit on class sizes?  How will the admission arrangements operate? iii) Academy Ethos

 How will the Academy ensure effective pupil discipline and respect between students and between students and staff?  How will you promote inclusive provision for all pupils? iv) Curriculum

 What are the arrangements likely to be for the length of the school day and the school year?  Who will be responsible for determining and delivering the agreed curriculum of the Academy?  How much flexibility will there be for the Academy to modify the curriculum in order to meet the needs of all young people?  Will the Academy retain its current subject specialisms?  What priority will be given to students who have special educational needs and those who are in care to the local authority? v) Faith Issues

 To what extent will the religious beliefs of current and prospective school staff be a factor in their future employment?  What roles will teachers and support staff be expected to play in promoting the school’s ethos, based upon Christian values? vi) Funding

 How will the financing of the Academy work and what will be the specific contributions from Woodard Schools and the local authority?  Why is the Academy route the only way of ensuring that the current schools receive major capital investment from the Government? vii) Conditions of Service (raised at the briefings for staff and governors)

 Will staff receive confirmed written assurances about their terms and conditions of employment upon transfer to the Academy, and beyond?  Will some of the extra funding available be used to increase the numbers of support staff such as learning support assistants?  Will the staffing structure remain the same?

viii) Managing the Building Work

 How will the Academy and the local authority minimize possible disruption caused for students and staff by the major building work required on each site?  To what extend will the new Academy be housed in new, state of the art accommodation?  Will equivalent provision be made to ensure continuity of the current activities housed within the Youth Wing?

4.9 An analysis of the responses received during the consultation process has been undertaken. The following written responses were received, including those received following the deadline date of 7th November 2008:

A total of 27 responses were received. 19 responses were ‘for’ the proposal and 8 were ‘against’ the proposal.

4.10 Whilst the total of responses is disappointing, it can be concluded from the generally positive public meeting and the positive response to DJB’s consultation that there is strong support for the proposal in the wider community. Equally, there are still a number of concerns for the staff group and local parents. It is not uncommon for concerns and key issues to be highlighted during the feasibility phase of such a major change project. They certainly provide the sponsors with a helpful agenda for further action.

4.11 In response to these concerns, and the wide range of key issues raised by those attending the consultation meetings last month (see 4.8 above), the planned development work during the remainder autumn term 2008 will include further discussions with various key groups. It is hoped that these further consultation opportunities will enable the County Council and ULT to address and, as far as possible, to resolve continuing concerns, not least in relation to the practical implementation issues summarised in 4.8 above.

4.12 In the next phase of discussions about the key issues raised during the public consultation process, efforts will be made to engage with the significant majority of parents and residents who chose not to respond in writing. ULT and the County Council will also seek broadly based community contributions to the continuing development work.

5. Resource Implications and Value for Money

5.1 The present indicative capital funding level for the proposed Shoreham Academy is up to £30m. It is hoped that most of the major building work would be concluded by August 2011, two years after the Academy begins its work.

5.2 As with the initial ‘Expression of Interest’, the feasibility project is being supported by the DCSF. Since February 2007 the County Council has enhanced its capacity to work with The United Learning Trust in order to contribute to the detailed educational vision and specification for the Academy, and to support feasibility project development and implementation work on behalf of the local community. The County Council’s costs of the feasibility study on the Academy buildings, part funded by the DCSF, are included in the capital programme.

5.3 In the past, sponsors made a contribution towards the building costs of the Academy. However, in response to representations from potential sponsors, the Government has moved towards an ‘endowment model’. Sponsors are now able to establish an endowment fund worth £2 million, with a minimum of £500,000 payable in the first year. Payment of the endowment would normally be over a five year period. This endowment is used at the discretion of the Academy governors to fund activities over and above the core education provided, which is funded entirely by the Government on the same basis as for other state secondary schools in the area. The cost of the endowment fund will be fully met by the sponsor, with no contribution from the County Council.

5.4 Sponsors from the educational sector, such as The United Learning Trust, are able to bring value to an Academy project through their experience and expertise in education but they have more restricted access to charitable funding. In such circumstances, the DCSF is prepared to negotiate exceptional arrangements so that an endowment may be built up appropriately.

5.5 The Academy would be free to decide from where it draws its services although possible continued use of, for example, County Council services for human resources, property, legal matters and payroll will be considered during and after the feasibility phase.

5.6 The County Council will wish to support appropriate continuity and consistency in relation to criminal records (CRB) checks and safeguarding procedures for any Academies which it sponsors. We have also sought during feasibility to achieve a clarity and consistency of approach equivalent to the expectations placed upon all maintained schools in the county when it comes to pupil admissions and pupils who have special educational needs.

5.7 There are no known legal or planning problems relating to the present school site. The County Council owns the freehold of the land. Future arrangements, such as long term leasing to the Academy Trust, will be considered as part of the feasibility project, with the County Council seeking to protect the long term interests of current and future pupils and their local communities. The potential use of the site for extended multi-agency provision will also be considered at this stage.

6. Risk Management Implications

6.1 There is a range of potential risks associated with the establishment of academies. The central purpose of each feasibility project is for key partners to identify and resolve such risks if at all possible. A comprehensive risk profile has been drawn up to assist the feasibility project. At this stage, in giving conditional approval to the proposed school closure, the County Council will continue to be able to assess those risks before a final decision is made about whether or not to proceed.

6.2 It would be open to any party to decide not to proceed if it were not possible to agree how best to resolve significant areas of difficulty prior to the conclusion of each feasibility project. Nonetheless, much constructive commitment to the development of these proposals has been forthcoming to date. There is every reason to believe, therefore, that The United Learning Trust, the County Council and partner organisations should be able to resolve, with the support of the DCSF, any contentious or complex matters which will require resolution before both Funding and Partnership Agreements are signed for the proposed Academy.

7. Customer Focus Appraisal

7.1 A Customer Focus Appraisal has been undertaken and is attached as Appendix 1 to this report.

8. Crime and Disorder Act Implications

8.1 Whilst the massive capital investment proposed for Academies on the south coast would lead to improved security through modern design work, opportunities for extended partnership work would also be created which would engage students in constructive activities and enhance their life chances. This would support the achievements of children and young people from the Shoreham-by-Sea and Southwick areas within the ‘Making a Positive Contribution’ aspects of the Every Child Matters agenda.

9. Human Rights Act Implications

9.1 Having considered Article 2 of the first Protocol (the right to education), the feasibility work relating to the future provision to be made by the proposed Academy for young people of secondary age in Shoreham-by-Sea and Southwick will help to ensure that there will continue to be sufficient high quality school places available for local young people aged 11 to 18. An inclusive approach would be adopted by the Academy in meeting the needs of individual students.

John Dixon John Balsdon Executive Director Adults & Children Head of Academies

Background Papers

1. Department for Education and Skills Prospectus – ‘400 Academies’, a Prospectus for Sponsors and Local Authorities’, May 2007.

2. Department for Children, Schools and Families Prospectus – ‘Academies and Trusts : Opportunities for Schools, Sixth Form and FE Colleges’, January 2008.

3. Consultation booklet on the proposed Academy, “An Academy for Shoreham by Sea”, September 2008.

4. DJB Consultancy Public Consultation Interim Report.

Contacts: John Balsdon, Head of Academies Ext 77750