Agenda Item No: A1

CABINET

10 DECEMBER 2009

CORPORATE DIRECTOR FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE SERVICES PAUL BURNETT

CABINET MEMBER WITH RESPONSIBILITY FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE COUNCILLOR ANDREW GRANT

Subject: Outcomes of the consultation process on the proposal to establish an at Weston Favell School, Recommendations: Cabinet is asked to agree the issue of a Statutory Notice of Closure in order to begin the process for closing Weston Favell School. The closure of the school will be subject to the Secretary of State’s agreement to establish an academy.

1. Purpose of Report 1.1 This proposal is linked to the key priority to raise the attainment of pupils and improve school performance. 1.2 Weston Favell is a National Challenge school that has, until this year, been performing below the Government’s floor target of 30% of pupils achieving 5 A*-C GCSE passes including English and Maths. The proposal to establish an Academy is intended to secure a step change in levels of pupil achievement. It was initially proposed that the school would close on 31 December 2009 and that the proposed Academy would open on 1 January 2010. As a result of the delay in reporting the outcomes of the consultation to Cabinet (originally scheduled for 13 October 2009) this timescale will have to be revised and discussions are being held currently with DCSF to clarify this position. 1.3 The key purpose of this report is to report the outcomes of the consultation phase and to secure agreement to begin the next phase of work which will require the publication of statutory notices to close the school in order that an Academy can be created. The establishment of an Academy is a decision for the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families and the closure would be subject to this agreement.

2. Relevant Corporate Outcomes A more secure, healthy and independent future for our children, young people, and our adults

3. Background 3.1 The County Council is committed to providing the best education and life chances for students at Weston Favell School. 3.2 Results for GCSE’s are only one measure used in education, but an important one, and GCSE results at Weston Favell School have been below the minimum standard expected for schools for a number of years. (Data on the performance of Weston Favell School is included at Appendix 10.) This means that many students have not had the chance to reach their full potential. 3.3 The fact that the school has been performing below the floor target set for secondary schools in (30% 5A-C grades including English and Maths) resulted in the school becoming a National Challenge school. The National Challenge is a programme of support to secure higher standards in secondary schools. 3.4 The school has begun to respond to the challenge and this year achieved 30% 5+ A* to C grade GCSE’s including English and Maths. Whilst this is an achievement it is important to emphasise that the 30% 5 A-C floor target is a minimum requirement and the Authority would wish to see further improvement to ensure that a higher proportion of pupils achieve appropriate levels of attainment. To this end the County Council and DCSF believe a major change, supported by the investment that accompanies academies, could build on the progress made this year and secure a real step change in outcomes for students in the future. 4. Consultation and Scrutiny 4.1 A consultation on the future of the school began on Monday 7 September 2009 and ended on Friday 2 October 2009. Prior to this, on Thursday 3 September 2009 representatives of the County Council and the proposed sponsors of the academy, the Trust (ULT) met with the Weston Favell Governing Body. 4.2 The Council produced a consultation leaflet which was circulated to all parents, staff and other stakeholders including local councillors. This gave information about how views on the proposal could be expressed and submitted to the local authority for inclusion in our deliberations. 4.3 The consultation process included meetings with; students (15.0709), staff (15.07.09), other professionals (23.07.09) and parents / community (15.07.09 and 23.07.09). These meetings included explanation of the reasons for the proposal by the County Council and a presentation by the proposed sponsor on their plans for the school and for securing improved performance and attainment. Following these presentations opportunities were provided for questions from the stakeholder groups. Minutes of these meetings are included as appendices. 4.4 At the same time that the County Council was consulting on the closure an organisation called DJB were consulting on the academy proposal on behalf of the proposed sponsor and DCSF. DJB produced a consultation leaflet and conducted a number of group and one to one interviews. A copy of their report is included as an appendix. 4.5 During the consultation period the Council received 398 written responses. Of these 10 supported the proposal and 5 were neither for nor against. The remaining 383 were against the proposal.

4.6 Of the 398 responses, 202 were from parents, 111 from students, 12 from staff and 15 from prospective parents. The remaining 57 were from others such as, grandparents, local residents, local councillors and staff, including head, of other local schools.

4.7 The reasons for stakeholder opposition to the proposal, listed below in order of strength of feeling, can be summarised as follows:

Weston Favell is already improving and there is satisfaction with the school and the progress it is making. It has reached the targets set for it. The change to academy status will bring further disruption to a school and student population already having to come to terms with two previous periods of disruption. These are the change from three tier to two tier school provision and the Northampton PFI school rebuilding programme. The United Learning Trust has failed to convince stakeholders that they can make a significant improvement to levels of attainment. In the view of many stakeholders ULT has presented no clear account of how it would secure this improvement. Further, respondents have quoted the slow rate of progress made at Northampton Academy and ULT’s record in other academies they operate. Respondents were unconvinced by the proposal, in general terms, and questioned the motives of the local authority in making it. Some parents said that they did not choose to send their children to Northampton Academy and do not want an Academy education for their children at Weston Favell. An Academy operated by ULT would mean another school with a church ethos and limit choice in this part of Northampton. The general track record of academies is not convincing. The proposal is being supported by a promise of short term funding. This is not sufficient to support the case for change.

4.8 It is important that we set out in this report our responses to these points.

4.9 Public recognition was given, by representatives of the local authority, to the improved pupil attainment secured by Weston Favell School in the GCSE results announced in August 2009. The school did achieve 30% 5A*-C grades including English and Maths this year. It is important to note that 30% is the minimum target set in National Challenge and must be sustained until the end of the national challenge initiative in 2012. The achievement of the minimum target this year does not remove the school from National Challenge and it remains a requirement that they remain at this level at least for the next two years. It should be emphasised that even at this improved performance level, 70% of pupils did not achieve the 5A*-C level including English and Maths and this remains a significant concern. It is critical that the rate of improvement continues so that a significantly higher proportion of pupils reach the 5A*-C level including English and Maths. Whilst the school has set out plans and projections that indicate further improvement in the future, it remains the view of officers that the additional capacity provided by the Academy option would build on the improvement secured to date and enable a step-change in performance that could not be secured within the existing resources available to the school and the local authority.

4.10 It is recognised that the school has encountered significant change in recent years as a result of the schools reorganisation in Northampton. The transition to Academy status would trigger change but this does not need to be disruptive to the provision of education to pupils. Indeed a number of recent Academy projects have been managed across the County to create smooth transitions and minimise disruption to pupils and the delivery or education. ULT did set out to stakeholders how this would be achieved. It should be noted that changes in leadership will occur whether or not the Academy option is adopted since the head teacher post at the school is currently vacant.

4.11 There has been strong opposition to the proposed sponsor ULT in the stakeholder views expressed at both the public meetings and in the submissions that have been made in response to the consultation. ULT has established links with given its organisational headquarters in Titchmarsh and its sponsorship of two other academies established in the county – Northampton Academy and the Buccleuch Academy in Kettering (formerly Montagu School). ULT interest in the project included a commitment to supporting, in the eastern part of Northampton, a partnership of providers of services to children and young people to ensure improved outcomes across the Every Child Matters agenda in that part of the town. This vision was complimentary to the strategy adopted by the local authority in its establishment of area-based working alongside the Area Improvement Partnership in Northampton. The authority remains committed to this partnership approach to outcome improvement and this has been a key factor in our support for the ULT academy proposal. Clearly, this commitment also requires confidence in each partner’s capacity to support improvement and this matter is addressed in part 5 of the report below.

4.12 The rationale for the local authority’s proposal was clearly set out in the presentations made to the stakeholder meetings. Emphasis was placed on the County Council’s priority to raise pupil attainment and improve school performance. Given the performance of the school in recent years attention was drawn to the importance of securing a step-change in pupil attainment and building on the improvement secured in 2009. It is recognised that the improvement plan that has been developed through National Challenge has positively impacted on results but it remains the view of the authority that the additional capacity, supported by the investment that Academy status would bring, could assist in further raising levels of performance at a faster rate than could be achieved without this investment. The key priority is to secure better outcomes for a greater proportion of pupils and to achieve this improvement at as fast a rate as possible.

4.13 In the presentations made by the local authority during the consultative process particular emphasis was placed on the importance of the investment package that would accompany the creation of an Academy at Weston Favell School. This investment and the additional improvement capacity this might secure is a key element in the proposal and represents a level of investment that could not be secured through an alternative route. Securing confirmation from DCSF of this investment and its precise level has been a key reason for the delay in presenting this report to Cabinet. The outcomes of these discussions are set out below.

4.14 A significant area of concern that has been voiced across the consultation process has been concern about admissions to the school, the admission policy to be adopted at Weston Favell School should the school become a ULT academy and the impact a second ULT academy in the area would have on diversity and choice. ULT is a subsidiary of the not-for-profit charity, the United Church Schools Trust (UCST) which has been running independent schools in the UK for 125 years. However, it is important to emphasise that ULT academies are not church schools and, should the academy be created, ULT proposes a fully inclusive admissions policy. For September 2010 the academy would take part in the co-ordinated admission arrangements run by the County Council and would use the local criteria for the allocation of places. Thereafter it is proposed that the academy’s admissions would be

based on ULTs Admissions Policy which has formed part of the consultation. These priorities would be as follows:

Children with statements of SEN where the Academy is named on the statement; Children in public care (looked after children) Children for whom it is essential to be admitted to the academy because of special circumstances related to medical and social needs; Children who have a brother or sister on the roll of the academy at the time of admission; Children who live closer to the academy than any other school/academy.

4.15 Whilst it is recognised that agreement to this proposal would create a second ULT academy in the eastern part of Northampton it is nonetheless important to recognise that this academy would have its own status, working in partnership with but complimentary to the Northampton Academy and with different specialism’s – currently proposed to be science and technology alongside a theme of business and enterprise. The new academy would, therefore, make an offer different to that of other schools in the town and that at Northampton Academy and, therefore, providing parents with diversity of offer and choice. An important factor for parents in identifying their preferred school is the performance of the school and the intention of this proposal is that performance would improve in terms of both pupil attainment and organisational effectiveness. 5. Investment and Quality

5.1 Two important factors that require further comment in this report are the matters of investment and quality. The delay in reporting the outcomes of the first stage of consultation on the Weston Favell Academy proposal has primarily resulted from further work that has been undertaken to better advise Members on these two matters before they take a decision on whether to proceed to the next stage of the proposed process and issue statutory notices for closure.

5.2 As stated earlier in this report the level of investment made available by the DCSF to the proposed sponsor is a critical component of the proposal since this investment represents a key element of the value-added by the organisational and structural change that would flow from the creation of an academy. This investment would enable capacity building – in relation to leadership and management, teacher and staff development, curriculum development, ICT infrastructure and support, workforce development and the like – that would assist in raising levels of performance beyond those currently achieved. This is critical to achieving the step-change in performance sought through this proposal.

5.3 Members will be aware that recent media coverage of academy proposals across the country had included reports that additional levels of investment might be reduced or even cease in the light of the economic downturn. It was important to secure from DCSF assurances about levels of investment if an informed decision about the potential capacity for improvement that would be secured through this proposal could be made. To this end there has been extensive communication between the authority and the DCSF to secure clarity on this point.

5.4 The position we have reached is as follows.

5.4.1 The DCSF estimates ‘that the academy at Weston Favell will benefit from up to £2 million of investment and support, which it would not receive if the school did not become an academy. The most substantial element of the investment is around £1.7million in Start-Up Grant which will be paid in the academy’s first few years and will cover elements such as textbooks, equipment and uniform, and to support the cost of the management team. Further Start-Up Grant for transitional items will probably be payable, at a level which depends on DCSF's assessment of a bid submitted by the sponsor. If the academy opens in April it will receive £75,000 as an Education Improvement Grant to help the academy make a significant early impact on teaching and learning, and the academy’s staff will have access to 90 days worth of free advice, support, consultancy and training provided by the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust during its first two years.

5.4.2 In addition the DCSF has indicated that it would be willing to provide £15,000 to put towards the County Council’s legal costs related to the establishment of the academy subject to deadlines being met so that academy can open on 1 April 2010.

5.5 Set against these sums are the financial implications of the creation of an academy for the County Council and for the Direct Schools Grant. Currently, as set out in the financial implications section of this report, there is a potential cost of £100,000 to the County Council relating to legal costs (which would reduce by £15,000 if the agreement in 5.4.2 is delivered) and £330k to the DSG.

5.6 It remains the case that agreement to the creation of an academy at Weston Favell would secure additional investment to support school improvement and enhance improvement in attainment but, taking into account the costs to the authority and the DSG the net impact is lower than previously indicated at around £1.6m.

5.7 Alongside the matter of investment levels must be placed consideration of the quality of the academy sponsorship proposal since the investment is intended to be utilised by the academy sponsor to secure the step-change in performance sought. It is important to comment on the performance of the sponsor particularly given recent media coverage of ULTs performance nationally as an academy sponsor.

5.8 ULT currently manages 17 academies: Manchester, Lambeth, Northampton, Salford City, Barnsley, Sheffield Park, Sheffield Springs, Paddington, Walthamstow, William Hulmes’s Grammar School, North Oxfordshire, Swindon, Stockport, Accrington, , Shoreham and Kettering Buccleuch.

5.9 Overall ULT Group Performance data for 2008/2009 is illustrated as follows:

5.10 As can be seen from these data ULT has secured improvement in pupil attainment levels overall and recorded a 5% improvement in its 5 A*-C rate (including English and Maths) between 2008 and 2009.

5.11 It is the case that improvement has not been consistent across the 17 academies currently managed by ULT and two of these academies have been deemed inadequate by Ofsted. It is equally the case that the academy in Manchester has been judged outstanding.

5.12 It is worth noting the performance in Northampton Academy which is the local academy which has been managed by ULT for four years. In the GCSE results in 2009 the Northampton Academy improved its GCSE 5 A*-C (including English and Maths) performance by 12% to 40%. This means it is ranked 3rd of the 9 secondary schools in Northampton after Northampton Schools for Boys and Girls. The raw GCSE 5A-C rate was also the third highest standing at 59% in comparison to Weston Favell’s 39% - the lowest percentage of all the schools in Northampton. In terms of comparative value added from KS2 to KS4 the Northampton Academy is ranked 5th of 9 whereas Weston Favell is 9 of nine.

5.13 Members will be aware that Councillor Grant received a letter from Vernon Coaker, Minister of State for Schools and Learners confirming that DCSF regard ULT as a suitable sponsor for Weston Favell. This letter is attached as Appendix 11.

5.14 Performance data specific to Northampton Academy and the two Sheffield academies which was the focus of much attention during the consultation is included in Appendix 10. The data for Weston Favell School is also included for comparative reasons.

6. Alternative Options Considered 6.1 When Weston Favell was first placed in the National Challenge programme discussions with National Challenge personnel and the DCSF concluded that structural and organisational change was required to secure the improvements sought and to enable the school to raise pupil attainment to a level that was consistently and sustainably above the floor target of 30% 5A*-C, including English and Maths. There was clear agreement between the local authority, National Challenge and DCSF at that stage that the status quo was not a viable option. 6.2 Two potential options were considered at that stage: the Academy route and the establishment of a National Challenge Trust school. Consideration of these options was undertaken with National Challenge, DCSF and with the then head teacher, Chair of Governors and two other governor representatives. Each option was considered in the context of the key development needs of the school. At that stage the conclusion was that the Academy option was best able to secure both sustainable capacity for improvement supported by the investment that would accompany the creation of an Academy. This was the reason that the Academy route was identified as the preferred option and potential sponsors were then sought by the DCSF. Subsequent to these discussions the United Learning Trust was identified as the proposed sponsor. 7. Financial Implications 7.1 In considering the options appraisal from a service perspective the recommended option is broadly financially neutral on an on-going basis, post 1 April 2010, as

Academies are fully funded by the DCSF. There is a potential risk that there may be competition with other capital resources 7.2 Academies are funded directly from DCSF. The Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) is top sliced to reflect what the school would have received through the LA’s formula funding. There is also potentially a loss of some central DSG budget, for example, for the School Admissions Service. 7.3 All specific grants for academies will be paid direct by DCSF rather than Northamptonshire County Council. This means that certain Standards Funds Grants received by the Council will reduce, for example School Development Grant and School Standards Grant. 7.4 The cost of any redundancies resulting from the change and taking place prior to 31 March 2010 will be shared by the LA and DCSF. It is not expected that there will be any redundancies in this case. 7.5 NCC will incur legal costs in producing and agreeing the relevant legal agreements. It is currently estimated this will cost up to £100K. This will increase the County Council’s projected overspend for 2009-10. 7.6 The schools deficit balance will remain with the Council as part of the DSG. Estimated DSG deficit balance -

Description £k Explanation

Projected school deficit as 47 at 31 March 2010.

Balance on Asset purchase 283 DCSF have informed NCC that they will loan with the Authority not offset either the cost of the Asset Purchase loan or the termination of leases.

The estimated costs of 0 If the proposed sponsor decided to not early termination of school take on the leases the cost of termination leases. is £314,000. However, ULT have said that they are prepared to take on the leases.

Total estimated deficit to 330 be borne by the DSG

Current Forecast year 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 & beyond £000 £000 £000 £000 Capital Investment Costs 0 0 0 0 Funded by N/A On-going costs (revenue) Legal costs to NCC 100 0 0 0

School gross deficit (DSG) 330 0 0 0 Total one off costs 430 0 0 0 Funded by: NCC NCC £100K, DSG £330K Total Costs (capital & £430 0 0 0 revenue)

What benefits will the proposal The expected benefit is an improvement in pupil deliver? attainment and school performance.

7.7 These tables set out the cost to the County Council and the DSG. The level of investment from DCSF to the proposed Academy would be in the region of £2m (see paragraph 5.4.1) which represents a net gain of £1.6m.

8. Risk and Business Continuity Management

a) Risk(s) associated with the proposal

Risk Mitigation Residual Risk The timescale is too short and Discussions are already taking AMBER prevents the full preparation for place to ensure that legal matters transfer to take place. are considered in order that timescales can be met. Loss of staff. It has been The experience in AMBER suggested that the change to Northamptonshire of other schools academy status will result in a high changing to become an academy is level of staff leaving the school. that this is not the case. The proposed sponsor has made it clear that it wishes all staff to remain and transfer under TUPE. The school is part of the NCC, DCSF and the sponsors wish AMBER Northampton Schools PFI. There for the proposed academy to are two options open; the school remain within the scheme. to come out of the scheme or Discussions are taking place remain as part of the scheme. between all parties, including the PFI company, and their legal representatives to ensure that this option can be achieved. The financial risk associated with DCSF have agreed, in principle, to AMBER the PFI contract. indemnify the council should the academy at any stage in the future cause the PFI contract to terminate. A formal response from DCSF is awaited. The risk of costs associated with Any amendments to this in order to AMBER the Project Agreement to the accommodate the academy are Northampton Schools PFI. being discussed with the proposed sponsor and the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) in order to ensure that there is no additional cost to

the council. The risk to the council’s partial The council has taken advice on GREEN exemption limit on VAT. how it will proceed in this matter in order to protect its interests. This has been shared with DCSF and the proposed sponsor. Lack of support from stakeholders. The council has been making the RED There was a high level of case for change based upon the response during the consultation. performance of the school over a Most of these were against the period of time and the view of proposal. officers that sustained improvement will only occur if a structural change takes place.

b) Risk(s) associated with not undertaking the proposal

Risk Risk Rating Failure to improve levels of attainment at the school within an RED acceptable timescale.

9. List of Appendices

Appendices: Appendix 1 Minutes of the meeting with students 15.09.09 Appendix 2 Minutes of the meeting with staff 15.09.09 Appendix 3 Minutes of the meeting with parents and community 15.09.09 Appendix 4 Minutes of the meeting with other professional 23.09.09 Appendix 5 Minutes of the meeting with parents and community 23.09.09 Appendix 6 Consultation report by DJB on behalf of ULT and DCSF. Appendix 7 Equalities Impact Assessment Appendix 8 Submission from the Weston Favell School Governors. Appendix 9 Letter from Sally Keeble MP to Rt Hon Ed Balls. Appendix 10 Performance data specific to Northampton and Sheffield academies Appendix 11 Letter from Vernon Coaker, Minister of State for Schools and Learners Appendix 12 NCC’s consultation leaflet

Author: Name: Paul Burnett Team: Children and Young Peoples Service Contact details: Tel: 01604 236252 Email: [email protected] Background Papers: None Does the report propose a key decision is YES taken? If yes, is the decision in the Forward YES Plan? Will further decisions be required? If so, If Cabinet agree to this recommendation to please outline the timetable here issue Statutory Notice of Closure a six week period of representations follows. Cabinet will then to need to consider the closure of the school.

Is this report proposing an amendment to NO the budget and/or policy framework? Have the financial implications been YES cleared by the Strategic Finance Manager Name of SFM: Karen Plant (SFM)? Have any capital spend implications been NO – there is no capital spend implication. cleared by the Capital Asset Investment Group (CAIG) Has the report been cleared by the YES relevant Corporate Director or ACE? Name of Director: Paul Burnett Has the relevant Cabinet Member been YES consulted? Cabinet Member: Cllr. Andrew Grant Has the relevant scrutiny committee been NO consulted? Has the report been cleared by Legal YES Services? Name of solicitor: Karine Desforges Solicitor’s comments: Legal services will need to be involved trough the process Have any communications issues been YES cleared by Communications and Name of officer: Simon Deacon Marketing? Has an Equalities Impact Assessment YES been carried out in relation to this report? Are there any community safety NO implications?

Are there any environmental implications: NO

Are there any Health & Safety NO Implications: Are there any Human Resources YES - If the proposal was to proceed TUPE Implications: arrangements will be made to transfer staff to the employment of the academy.. Are there any human rights implications: NO Constituency Interest: All Northampton divisions.