Bishopsford School

Committee: Cabinet Date: 4th April 2012 Agenda item: 3 Wards: All

Subject: Bishopsford School Lead officer: Yvette Stanley, Director of Children, Schools and Families Lead member: Councillor Peter Walker, Cabinet Member for Education Forward Plan reference number: 1134 Contact officer: Jan Martin, Head of Education

Recommendations: A. Cabinet agrees that as a result of Bishopsford School being placed in special measures following their recent Ofsted Inspection, the LA statement of Action should request the Secretary of State to consider making an Academy Order in relation to Bishopsford Arts College and endorses Harris Federation as the Merton’s preferred sponsor. B. Cabinet notes that consultation commenced on 16 March in respect of replacing the Governing Body of Bishopsford Arts College with an Interim Executive Board to drive school improvement and to facilitate the smooth transition to Academy status and agrees that the Director of Children, Schools and Families should, after consideration of the consultation responses and in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Education, decide whether to apply for consent for an Interim Executive Board to be put in place and, if consent is received, appoint an Interim Executive Board for the school. C. Cabinet agrees that in view of the requirement to submit the Council’s finalised Statement of Action within statutory time limits, the decision is urgent and should not be subject to call-in subject to the agreement of the Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Commission following the Cabinet meeting.

1 PURPOSE OF REPORT AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 This report advises Cabinet that following an inspection of Bishopsford Arts College by Ofsted, in accordance with the Education Act 2005, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector (HMCI) is of the opinion that the school requires special measures. (Ofsted Report Appendix 1).

1.2 This report sets out for Cabinet the expectations on the Local Authority when a maintained school is so designated and provides officers’ recommendations for action which have to be included in the Local Authority Statement of Action (SofA) to be returned to the Secretary of State within 10 working days of receipt of the Ofsted report. The SofA recommendations must cover the future status and governance of the school and arrangements for governance during the

3 transition. The SofA must also summarise the action taken since the inspection to support the school during the transition period. Given the timing of the publication officers have produced a draft SofA which is attached as Appendix 2. Officers will finalise the SofA in the light of Cabinet comments and further detailed work within the 10 day timescale.

1.3 The Secretary of State has made it clear in policy statements that when a school goes into Special Measures changes of governance and the option of Academy status will be considered. Further it is ultimately a decision by the Secretary of State as to whether or not to make an Academy Order and to decide on the appropriate Academy sponsor.

1.4 In this context LA officers and Bishopsford’s Governing Body acknowledge that the school has no option but to transfer to Academy status. The advice of officers is that their recommended sponsor should be the Harris Federation for reasons set out later in the report. The Governing Body has invited the Harris Federation and the Academy Education Trust to meet them to consider making a preference to the Secretary of State and have advised that their preference is for Academy Education Trust.

1.5 Whilst the decision to make an Academy Order and to appoint a sponsor rests with the Secretary of State who will be advised by DfE official, it is proposed that officers make a recommendation in their SofA and Cabinet are asked to endorse this recommendation so that the Council’s view can be considered.

1.6 The leadership and management of the school has been judged by Ofsted to be inadequate. In this context and combined with the need to effectively manage the transition to academy status it is therefore proposed that an Interim Executive Board (IEB) replaces the Governing Body. A two week consultation period is advised for responses to the IEB proposal to be received and considered. (Appendix 3).

2 DETAILS 2.1. The Council must submit a Statement of Action (SofA) within 10 working days of receipt of notice from HMCI of publication of an inspection report which places a school in special measures. As officers’ recommendations include action to comply with the expectation that the school converts to academy status and the imposition of an IEB to manage the transition, it is appropriate for Cabinet to decide these matters. The Ofsted report was published on March 26th 2012 and a decision is required to enable officers to submit their statement of action by April 11th 2012, hence the need for urgent consideration of these issues. Members of the Children and Young People Scrutiny Panel have been invited to attend the relevant Cabinet meeting. In the light of the Department for Education (DfE) deadline and the need to provide certainty, the Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Commission has been consulted and has agreed that following the Cabinet meeting he will consider waving the right to call-in.

4 2.2. Officers are recommending that the Cabinet asks the Secretary of State to consider using his powers to make an Academy Order and recommend to the Secretary of State the Harris Federation as the Academy sponsor for Bishopsford Arts College. The reasons for this preference are set out under the headings of performance, professional development, partnership, and popularity with parents and pupils.

2.3. Performance: Harris took on Tamworth Manor in 2006, since when rapid and sustained improvements have been made in all aspects of the school. Pupil progress and attainment have improved year on year and are now very good, as is attendance. The Academy was designated as Outstanding by Ofsted.

2.4. The track record of improvements across the wider Harris Federation of schools is very impressive with 7 of 9 academies which have been inspected under Harris’ management being designated as outstanding. This is significantly above the national average and all the more impressive considering many of the predecessor schools were in need of significant improvement. It is clear that having an outstanding local school, such as Harris Merton, available to support Bishopsford Arts College has many benefits for pupils. Evidence from across the Federation indicates that pupils’ outcomes will improve, attendance will improve and students will have access to all of the extensive broader opportunities the Federation provides.

2.5. Professional development: In Harris academies there is a strong focus on supporting all staff to develop their skills and expertise and professional development is well resourced as resources and development opportunities are able to be developed across the 14 schools in their federation. Harris can bring experienced and strong teachers and leaders from its Federation schools to help secure rapid improvement as well as drawing on its advanced skills teachers and curriculum experts.

2.6. Partnership: Harris Academy Merton already works closely with Merton Council and other Secondary and Primary Schools in the borough. The Head chairs the Secondary Heads’ Hard to Place Panel. The Academy has strong links with its feeder Primary Schools many of which would also be feeder Primaries for Bishopsford. Harris also hosts the Merton School Sports Partnership.

2.7. Popularity: The Harris Academy Merton is very popular with parents. It is heavily oversubscribed and has a waiting list of several hundred pupils. Bishopsford has been undersubscribed for a number of years and has vacancies in all year groups. It is anticipated that given both the Harris track record and its strong local brand and popularity that a second Harris Academy should generate greater pupil numbers which would have a beneficial effect on the school’s budget and therefore its overall resourcing.

5 2.8. More generally Harris has local knowledge and experience serving the Merton school population and similar populations in London.

2.9. The Academy Education Trust (AET) is an established sponsor of secondary schools but to date only has very few secondary schools in London and none in this area. It is officers’ view that a very strong local partner is needed to ensure that rapid progress is made at Bishopsford and that cannot easily be provided by AET. Their track record of success in London is not as evident as that of the Harris Federation and they are not a known provider in this area. The views of the governing body will be circulated when available.

2.10. Interim Executive Board: Given the inspection findings, the improvement agenda and the need to smoothly manage the transition to academy status, officers advise that the LA should use its powers to put in place an Interim Executive Board in place of the governing body of the school. The consent of the Secretary of State is required to the appointment of an IEB. The Board would be comprised of experienced governors, education professionals and community representatives and would oversee the improvement plan including the change of status. Once the Secretary of State has named a sponsor it would be expected that the sponsor also had a representative on the IEB. The Director wrote to the Governing Body and the Trust on 16 March advising them of the proposal to consult on an IEB. The Governing Body and Trust were given until 30 March to respond. Officers will advise members after 30 March of the consultation outcome and have recommended that the matter is delegated to the Director in consultation with the Cabinet Member as detailed in recommendation 2.

2.11 Other Considerations Over the next few months young people at Bishopsford will be taking exams and the governing body, school leadership and local authority officers are working together to ensure that those young people are appropriately supported in the run up to and during the examination period. The LA has put in an additional short term management resource to support the leadership and management of the school during this difficult time.

2.12 As well as ensuring the current young people are appropriately supported, parents of and young people in year 6 have already made their preferences for secondary transfer. It is therefore particularly important that early decisions are taken on the future of the school and that these are appropriately communicated to the wider community. There has already been some negative press speculation about the school and it being placed in special measures.

2.13 This will also be a period of concern for staff who will also want to be considering which organisation they would be transferred to under TUPE arrangements and / or to consider other options. The teacher resignation date is in April and so early certainty would again be helpful for staff.

3 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS 3.1. Under current legislation there are no alternative realistic options other than transfer to an Academy. In the event of a school or Council proposing an alternative it is clear the Secretary of State would be likely to impose an Academy Order in any event.

3.2. The only choice relates to a preference for the Academy sponsor. The report sets out the reasons for officers’ preferred provider and the appendix sets out the governing body’s preference. The final decision rests with the Secretary of State.

4 CONSULTATION UNDERTAKEN OR PROPOSED 4.1. The school has considered a number of Academy sponsors and chosen one which in their view reflects the schools’ current values and ethos.

4.2. Local Authority officers have considered a number of Academy sponsors and are recommending one for the reasons set out above.

4.3. The Local Authority must consult the governing body of the school and its foundation before applying to the Secretary of State for consent to establish an IEB. The normal time period for consultation is two weeks.

4.4. If the school is to be converted into an academy, the Academies Act requires consultation on the conversion to have been carried out before the conversion takes effect. This consultation can be carried out after the making of an Academy Order and for a school in special measures may be carried out by the Academy sponsor.

5 TIMETABLE 5.1. Officers attended the feedback on the final day of the inspection when the “special measures” judgement was given to the Head, Chair of Governors and senior staff. (February 2nd 2012)

5.2. Officers informed the Cabinet Member of the outcome and received permission to actively consider options for an Academy Sponsor including Harris as the preferred provider.

5.3. Immediately after the draft inspection report was available to officers (February 20th 2012) the Department for Education was contacted to confirm the expectations of the new legislation relating to schools requiring “special measures”. Preliminary discussions began with a potential sponsor.

5.4. Two Academy sponsors gave presentations to the Governors and Officers.

5.5. Letter received from DfE confirming the special measures decision March 23rd 2012 (Appendix 4).

5.6. The Ofsted report stating that the school requires “special measures” was published on March 26th 2012.

5.7. On March 5th officers attended the Governing Body meeting to discuss the report and preferred sponsors.

5.8. March 6th 2012 the Governing Body notified officers of their decision to name AET as the proposed new sponsor.

5.9. March 16th – 30th Governing Body and Trust formally consulted on IEB proposal.

5.10. March 27th 2012 Committee report sent to Democratic Services for publication.

5.11. April 4th 2012 Cabinet decision.

5.12. April 11th 2102 LA Statement of Action sent to the Secretary of State

5.13. Week commencing April 2nd 2012 Director of Children Schools and Families considers, in consultation with the Lead Member, responses to consultation on an Interim Executive Board for Bishopsford and decides whether to apply to the Secretary of State for consent to appoint an IEB.

5.14. The Secretary of State will inform the school and the Council of his decision regarding an Academy Order in respect of Bishopsford Arts College and the appointment of the sponsor.

5.15. If an application is made and approved by the Secretary of State, the appointment of an Interim Executive Board to take over the running of the school and manage the transition to an academy.

5.16. Detailed discussions with the sponsor commence and it is hoped that the school would transfer to the Academy on September 1st 2012.

6 FINANCIAL, RESOURCE AND PROPERTY IMPLICATIONS 6.1 Property and PFI related matters are dealt with in paragraphs 7.6 to 7.8 below

6.2 When a school converts to an academy, there are financial implications for both the Local Authority’s general fund and the dedicated schools grant DSG) which is earmarked to be spend on children’s education. For the general fund the cost comes in the form of a reduction in formula grant. Central government has already reduced the formula grants of authorities for 2011/12 and 2012/13 by making certain assumptions and using financial information gathered through the section 251 financial return. This means that the transfer of a school to academy status would not cause an additional budget pressure on the 2012/13 budgets. The position in 2013/14 and beyond is unclear. There is DfE consultation outstanding and the DCLG is undertaking work on how the funding of former central services provided to Academies will feature in the revised funding arrangements post the replacement of formula grant by retained business rates. There is a realistic possibility that authorities will see a greater deduction from formula grant than the savings that they can make on central services.

6.3 The transfer of formula grant from the Local Authority to Academies is known as Local Authority Central Spend Equivalent Grant (LACSEG). Academies receive LACSEG to enable them to undertake various functions which for maintained schools are either undertaken by the authority or are funded by devolved payments from central funds. Using the 'Academy LACSEG Recoupment Calculator' the new academy would be entitled to £121,345.

6.4 Merton will receive £3,612,764 for 2012/13 through the DSG for the estimated 666 children at the school as per the January 2012 census. The school will be allocated £4,316,303 through Merton’s schools formula. This is because Merton’s formula redistributes resources to address deprivation issues as required under the Schools’ Financing regulations. Taking account of the prescribed factor exclusions, the council will need to adjust its DSG funding in accordance with Central Government’s guidance. 6.5 The new academy will become a separate legal employer. Its non teaching staff will retain the right to membership of the Pension Fund administered by Merton. The fund’s actuaries will value the contribution that they are required to make to the scheme, which will include a contribution to funding deficits.

7 LEGAL AND STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS 7.1. The requirements for inspections of maintained schools are set out in the Education Act 2005. Under section 15 of the Act, where in an inspection report the Chief Inspector states that it is his view that a school requires special measures, the Local Authority is required to consider what action to take in the light of the report, and arrangements for seeking and taking on board the views

7.2. Both the Local Authority and the Secretary of State have powers to intervene in relation to schools in special measures under the Education and Inspections Act 2006. The Local Authority’s powers include requiring the Governing Body of the school to enter into arrangements with another school, appointing additional governors, appointment of an Interim Executive Board to replace the Governing Body and suspension of the school’s delegated budget. The Secretary of State additionally has powers to direct the closure of the school or to make an Academy Order in respect of the school.

7.3. An Interim Executive Board can be used to secure rapid improvement in standards. Before the Local Authority can exercise the power to appoint an IEB it must consult the governors and the body responsible for appointment of foundation governors at the school, and must seek consent from the Secretary of State.

7.4. Under Section 6A of the 2006 Act (inserted by the Education Act 2011), where a Local Authority wishes to establish a new school in its area, it must first seek proposals for an academy.

7.5. The Secretary of State can make an Academy Order for the conversion of a maintained school into an academy under section 4 of the Academies Act 2010. An Academy Order can be made either on the application of a school’s governing body or without an application if the school is ‘eligible for intervention’. This includes schools in special measures. Before making an Academy Order in respect of a foundation school which is in special measures, the Secretary of State must consult the person who appoints the foundation governors for the school. The effect of an Academy Order is that the Local Authority ceases to maintain the school on the conversion date. The Secretary of State will enter into arrangements for an academy to replace the school from the conversion date. Where an Academy Order is made in respect of a school in special measures, the Secretary of State’s expectation is that the school will have a sponsor who will bring added drive, expertise and capacity. Under section 5 of the Act, before a maintained school is converted into an academy, the school’s governing body (or in the case of a school eligible for intervention the proposed academy provider) must consult on the conversion. The consultation can take place after the making of an Academy Order.

7.6. The Academies Act makes provision for transfer of land and other property when a school is converted into an academy. Staff would transfer to employment by the academy trust under TUPE. When an Academy Order is made, land and rights and liabilities held for the purposes of the school are transferred to a person connected with the running of the academy by

10 agreement, or the Secretary of State has power to make a transfer order. The Secretary of State can also make an order transferring land held by trustees of a foundation school to the Local Authority or to the academy. The Local Authority is required to transfer any budget surplus held by the school to the academy.

7.7. Bishopsford was established as a community school and became a foundation school with a Trust in November 2009 following publication of proposals for a change of category by the governors of the school. The school is included in the grouped schools’ PFI contract for Merton Secondary Schools under which facilities management is provided by NewSchools Merton. Under the PFI arrangements, the school site is leased to the PFI contractor. There is a Governing Body agreement between the Council and the Governing Body of each school in the PFI contract under which the governors agreed to the PFI arrangements and to make the school’s contribution to the PFI unitary charge. Bishopsford’s Governing Body remained bound by the PFI arrangements after the change in category from Community School to Foundation School with a Trust. Following the school’s change of status, the Council has been negotiating with the PFI provider and the School Trust to transfer the school site to the Trust, as required by regulations, with an overriding lease of the school site from the Trust to the Council enabling the lease of the site to the PFI provider to remain in place. The transfer of the school site and the new lease has not yet been completed due to delays in completion of other minor changes to the PFI with the PFI provider.

7.8. On conversion to an academy, the PFI arrangements would remain in place and the academy provider would be required to enter into an agreement with the Council to comply with the PFI project agreement. The LA will need to negotiate an agreed contribution towards the overall unitary charge payment from the academy providers. The site of the school would need to be transferred or leased to the academy provider with an overriding lease to the Council enabling the lease to the PFI provider to continue.

8 HUMAN RIGHTS, EQUALITIES AND COMMUNITY COHESION IMPLICATIONS 8.1. Raising standards and improving pupil outcomes are key contributions to improving life chances and choices for young people. Ensuring all our schools are good or better will contribute to addressing equalities and community cohesion issues. The proposed sponsor has already secured rapid improvements in another Merton school and all pupil groups at Bishopsford should benefit in the same way.

9 CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS 9.1. All Merton Secondary Schools work closely with the Police when required and there are no specific crime and disorder implications in these proposals.

11 10 RISK MANAGEMENT AND HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPLICATIONS 10.1. These will all be considered as part of the Due Diligence work to prepare for transfer to academy status.

11 APPENDICES – THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS ARE TO BE PUBLISHED WITH THIS REPORT AND FORM PART OF THE REPORT

• Appendix 1: Ofsted Report on Bishopsford Arts College • Appendix 2: Local Authority Statement of Action in relation to Bishopsford Arts College • Appendix 3: Interim Executive Board proposal for Bishopsford Arts College • Appendix 4: Confirmation of special measures category from Ofsted • Appendix 5: Statement from Bishopsford School

Bishopsford Arts College Inspection report

Unique reference number 131786 Local authority Merton Inspection number 381403 Inspection dates 1−2 February 2012 Lead inspector Emma Ing HMI

This inspection of the school was carried out under section 5 of the Education Act 2005.

Type of school Comprehensive School category Community Age range of pupils 11−16 Gender of pupils Mixed

Number of pupils on the school roll 666

Appropriate authority The governing body Chair Sandra Peddy Headteacher Andrew Barker Date of previous school inspection 1−2 April 2009 School address Lilleshall Road Morden SM4 6DU

Telephone number 020 8687 1157 Fax number 020 8687 1158 Email address [email protected]

Age group 11–16 Inspection date(s) 1–2 February 2012 Inspection number 381403 13 Inspection report: Bishopsford Art College, 1–2 February 2012 2 of 14

You can use Parent View to give Ofsted your opinion on your child’s school. Ofsted will use the information parents and carers provide when deciding which schools to inspect and when.

You can also use Parent View to find out what other parents and carers think about schools in England. You can visit www.parentview.ofsted.gov.uk, or look for the link on the main Ofsted website: www.ofsted.gov.uk

The Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills (Ofsted) regulates and inspects to achieve excellence in the care of children and young people, and in education and skills for learners of all ages. It regulates and inspects childcare and children's social care, and inspects the Children and Family Court Advisory Support Service (Cafcass), schools, colleges, initial teacher training, workbased learning and skills training, adult and community learning, and education and training in prisons and other secure establishments. It assesses council children’s services, and inspects services for looked after children, safeguarding and child protection. Further copies of this report are obtainable from the school. Under the Education Act 2005, the school must provide a copy of this report free of charge to certain categories of people. A charge not exceeding the full cost of reproduction may be made for any other copies supplied. If you would like a copy of this document in a different format, such as large print or Braille, please telephone 0300 123 4234, or email [email protected]. You may copy all or parts of this document for noncommercial educational purposes, as long as you give details of the source and date of publication and do not alter the information in any way. To receive regular email alerts about new publications, including survey reports and school inspection reports, please visit our website and go to ‘Subscribe’. Piccadilly Gate Store St Manchester M1 2WD

14 Inspection report: Bishopsford Art College, 1–2 February 2012 3 of 14

Introduction

Inspection team

Emma Ing Her Majesty’s Inspector

Hilary Macdonald Her Majesty’s Inspector

Olson Davies Additional inspector

Brian Lester Additional inspector

This inspection was carried out with two days' notice. Inspectors visited 41 lessons and observed teaching for over 16 hours. Meetings were held with staff, groups of students and the Chair of the Governing Body. There were no responses to the on line questionnaire (Parent View) of which to take account. Inspectors observed the school’s work and looked at leaders’ planning and selfevaluation, the minutes of the governing body, performance and attendance data and records in respect of behaviour management and racist and bullying incidents. They considered carefully the responses made in the 131 questionnaires from parents and carers and also the responses made by students and staff to questionnaires.

Information about the school

The number of students attending Bishopsford Arts College has declined steadily over the past three years and it has become a relatively small secondary school. Many students join the school midyear and midkey stage. Around half the students are from White British backgrounds, around 10% are White but not British, 10% have Black African heritage and 10% are of Asian descent. Just over one third of students speak English as an additional language. The proportion of students known to be eligible for free school meals is above average and is rising. The proportion of students with a disability or who have special educational needs is higher than the national average. The type of needs these students have varies but most have behavioural, educational and social difficulties. The school has performing arts status.

The school met government floor standards in 2011, which are the minimum expectations set for students’ attainment and progress.

In 2010 a sixth form offering level 3 courses, run by South Thames and Merton College, opened on the school site and some staff are employed jointly with the college.

15 Inspection report: Bishopsford Art College, 1–2 February 2012 4 of 14

Inspection grades: 1 is outstanding, 2 is good, 3 is satisfactory, and 4 is inadequate Please turn to the glossary for a description of the grades and inspection terms

Inspection judgements

Overall effectiveness 4

Achievement of pupils 4 Quality of teaching 4 Behaviour and safety of pupils 4 Leadership and management 4

Key findings

In accordance with section 13 (3) of the Education Act 2005, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector is of the opinion that this school requires special measures because it is failing to give its students an acceptable standard of education and the persons responsible for leading, managing or governing the school are not demonstrating the capacity to secure the necessary improvement.

The overall effectivness of Bishopsford Arts College is inadequate. School leaders have raised educational standards over the last four years, and last year exceeded government floor standards. However, students’ attainment is still well below the national average and the rate of improvement made by the school is not fast enough. There remain groups of students whose needs are not met and areas of learning for which there is not adequate provision.

Underachievement in English is widespread and students continue to make poor progress in this very important subject. White British boys and a significant number of students with behavioural and emotional difficulties make slower overall progress than their peers.

The quality of teaching is inadequate. In too many lessons students do not make adequate progress and good progress is too infrequent. Teaching does not support students to develop their literacy skills effectively and teachers do not use their knowledge of students’ learning needs to deliver lessons that fully meet these needs. Opportunities for students to think for themselves and take an active role in their learning are infrequent.

Students are courteous to visitors and generally well behaved around the school. They feel safe and happy at school. Their behaviour in lessons is often good but too many lessons are disrupted by poor behaviour, particularly in lower sets or when new or supply teachers are in charge.

There have been improvements in attendance, but it remains low.

16 Inspection report: Bishopsford Art College, 1–2 February 2012 5 of 14

Inspection grades: 1 is outstanding, 2 is good, 3 is satisfactory, and 4 is inadequate Please turn to the glossary for a description of the grades and inspection terms

The Principal and members of the senior leadership team recognise that there are significant weaknesses in educational provision, but work with middle leaders is not sufficiently focused or rigorous to effect the necessary improvements fast enough.

What does the school need to do to improve further?

Improve the attainment and the rate of progress made by underachieving students.

Improve learning and progress in English, and ensure that all students are enabled to acquire literacy and communication skills.

Reduce absence generally, and the number of students who are persistently absent, to bring attendance in line with the national average.

Improve the quality of teaching by ensuring that teachers: − Prepare and teach lessons that are sharply focused on precise learning objectives and closely matched to individual students’ abilities − support the development of literacy and oracy skills in all lessons − offer constructive feedback to students on how to do better − foster behaviour for learning and encourage students to actively participate in their learning.

Prioritise the school’s objectives and establish systems for driving improvement using performance management effectively to hold individuals to account for the impact of their work against key outcomes.

Main report

Achievement of pupils

While the school has improved students’ overall progress to broadly average, this masks longterm underachievement in English. Learning and progress in English remain weak. Underachievement in this subject is widespread and has not been tackled robustly. The 2011 test results show that, compared with the national average, a significantly lower proportion of students made the expected progress in English between Key Stages 2 and 4. Lesson observations and a scrutiny of students’ work indicate that progress remains inadequate in English in Key Stage 4.

Most students enter Bishopsford with standards in English and mathematics that are average or below average. Many continue to experience difficulties in reading and writing. When taught within specialist intervention groups those students who are identified as having special educational needs make good progress, but these students do not make good enough progress in mainstream lessons. As a result of 17 Inspection report: Bishopsford Art College, 1–2 February 2012 6 of 14

Inspection grades: 1 is outstanding, 2 is good, 3 is satisfactory, and 4 is inadequate Please turn to the glossary for a description of the grades and inspection terms

this and/or low attendance most neither catch up nor make progress in line with expectations in English or in their overall achievement. Many such students have behavioural, emotional and social difficulties.

School leaders have rightly identified the low attainment and poor progress made by White British students both in English and across the curriculum as a particular concern. Students who speak English as an additional language make better progress at the school and better progress than their peers nationally.

The progress made by students in lessons and the evidence seen in their exercise books show that it is rarely better than satisfactory and too often inadequate. Many students have weak oracy skills. Some teachers work hard to support them to develop these skills, for example by carefully introducing new vocabulary, talking through key spellings or features of a genre and offering time for structured talk, but this is uncommon. Students’ work is often poorly presented and the pace at which they work is slow even when they appear to be trying hard. Because teachers are not matching their lessons to the needs of individuals and are not supporting the development of basic skills many students are unable to access or complete the work fully.

Over the past two years there has been improvement in the teaching of mathematics and in the progress made by students in this subject. Students who start at the school with weak mathematics skills make good progress and most groups of students make progress that is in line with that made nationally.

Through a carefully structured curriculum and through interventions to support learning, school leaders have improved the proportion of students who attain five A* to C grades including English and mathematics at GCSE or an equivalent level. Attainment, however, has been consistently low over a period of some years. Although school leaders are seeking to increase the proportion of students who are entered for GCSEs, the numbers that take GCSEs in subjects other than English and mathematics remain very low.

Although most of the parents and carers who responded to the questionnaire agreed with the statement that ‘My child is making good progress at this school’, this view is not supported by inspection evidence. In some respects the school could be said to be closing the gap between the attainment of different groups. However this is because the attainment of all students is low and many groups are underachieving in important areas. School leaders are not successful in enabling vulnerable groups to catch up with others. While the school is caring of children who are looked after, they too, are not achieving satisfactory outcomes.

Quality of teaching

The quality of teaching is inadequate. There are several key factors which prevent students making satisfactory progress in lessons:

18 Inspection report: Bishopsford Art College, 1–2 February 2012 7 of 14

Inspection grades: 1 is outstanding, 2 is good, 3 is satisfactory, and 4 is inadequate Please turn to the glossary for a description of the grades and inspection terms

Too many students do not attend school regularly. This inevitably inhibits their own learning but also that of their classmates when they return because lesson time is taken to help them catch up. Teachers do not consistently support students to develop speaking, listening, reading and writing skills. Lessons are not sufficiently focused on the needs of individuals within the class and students do not get enough opportunities to think for themselves and take an active role in their learning. Although, students’ behaviour in lessons is often attentive and compliant, in far too many lessons there is repeated lowlevel disruption and inattention from students, and in some lessons, disruption by students prevents others from learning.

For these reasons inspection evidence does not concur with the very large majority of parents and carers who expressed a view that their children are well taught.

Many lessons are dominated by either the teacher talking from the front, or simple worksheets; activities which deny students the opportunities to develop their understanding or their communication and analytical skills. There is often a lack of clarity about the learning to be done at different points in the lesson and lack of clear feedback to students about what they need to do to improve.

There are some good lessons taking place across the school. In both mathematics and science the strong subject knowledge and enthusiasm demonstrated by teachers promote good progress particularly when students are encouraged to participate actively in their learning and investigate or solve challenging questions. For example, in a Year 9 chemistry lesson students were offered opportunities to work out some of the patterns in the periodic table. Their enthusiastic response ensured that they made good progress. Some teachers, as observed in a drama lesson, use open questions well and build systematically on previous learning. Students say they like physical education (PE), mathematics and science lessons particularly. In PE, subject teachers support learning by giving individual tailored feedback against clear targets. The provision for the arts is a relative strength of the school. Students appreciate the access to cultural activities and benefit from them. Teachers do not, however, plan routinely for students to develop their moral thinking or social skills by working collaboratively and discussing issues and sharing ideas.

Behaviour and safety of pupils

Behaviour is inadequate. In lessons, behaviour ranges from purposeful and compliant to highly disruptive. Students confirm that there is too much lowlevel disruption in lessons. The view expressed by parents and carers that their children’s lessons are disrupted by bad behaviour was supported by inspection findings.

The school provides for a relatively high number of students with behavioural, social and emotional difficulties. Teachers are aware of these students but are not always good at supporting them in lessons. School leaders have managed to reduce the 19 Inspection report: Bishopsford Art College, 1–2 February 2012 8 of 14

Inspection grades: 1 is outstanding, 2 is good, 3 is satisfactory, and 4 is inadequate Please turn to the glossary for a description of the grades and inspection terms

number of fixedterm exclusions but the proportion of such exclusions remains significantly higher than in most schools and too many of these involve students with disabilities or special educational needs.

Relationships in general in the school are positive and respectful. Students are welcoming and exceptionally courteous. Their behaviour around the school is usually good. There is an uptodate behaviour policy in the school and students expressed the view that when staff use it consistently it makes a positive difference; however, it is not consistently followed. Students feel safe and are cared for well. They report that what little bullying arises is followed up swiftly by staff. The school keeps careful records of incidents of racism and bullying and few such incidents occur. Students are aware of safety issues and how to keep themselves safe. Some reported, for example, that they had been trained in cybersafety and acted as mentors to others in this respect.

There are high levels of absence in the school. Although there has been some improvement, too many students miss too many days of learning and far too many students miss 15% or even 20% of school sessions. Not all students are aware of the importance of attendance and staff are, on occasion, authorising high levels of absence.

Leadership and management

Issues of concern raised in the inspection of 2009 and the subsequent monitoring visit have not been adequately addressed. Leaders have been ineffective in driving up the quality of teaching and learning, and therefore have not demonstrated the capacity for sustained improvement. The school’s selfevaluation presents a mixed picture in terms of its accuracy. The formal document that outlines key judgements about the school’s effectiveness is overgenerous, although records of governing body meetings and the Principal’s meetings with other school leaders indicate that there is awareness that there remain significant weaknesses in the school’s provision. Some important improvements, for example in overall attainment and in attendance, have been achieved since the previous inspection, but overall improvement has not been fast enough nor sufficient.

Relationships within the school are good and there is good understanding of different cultures. Students for whom English is an additional language do well and school staff have supported some individual students to achieve success. Although there is no active discrimination in the school, because there remain significant groups who underachieve, the promotion of equality and tackling of discrimination are not adequate.

Students in the school are safe, the single central record is in place and accurate and safeguarding procedures are known and followed.

Leaders, including governors, have too many key priorities and have not been sufficiently strategic and systematic in developing focused plans and checking on the 20 Inspection report: Bishopsford Art College, 1–2 February 2012 9 of 14

Inspection grades: 1 is outstanding, 2 is good, 3 is satisfactory, and 4 is inadequate Please turn to the glossary for a description of the grades and inspection terms

outcomes of actions against measurable criteria or numerical targets. Challenging questions are asked to hold individuals to account but these have not been followed up to ensure that progress is made over time. Middle leaders are passionate about their work. Subject leaders have been supported to monitor the work of their department but have yet to fully take on their role as leaders of performance and people.

The curriculum has provided the school with a stepping stone in terms of offering accessible subjects to students and creating some success. Leaders have rightly begun to introduce more GCSE subject options for more students. However, there are still insufficient opportunities planned for students to develop social skills or develop their moral awareness.

21 Inspection report: Bishopsford Art College, 1–2 February 2012 10 of 14

Glossary

What inspection judgements mean

Grade Judgement Description Grade 1 Outstanding These features are highly effective. An outstanding school provides exceptionally well for all its pupils’ needs. Grade 2 Good These are very positive features of a school. A school that is good is serving its pupils well. Grade 3 Satisfactory These features are of reasonable quality. A satisfactory school is providing adequately for its pupils. Grade 4 Inadequate These features are not of an acceptable standard. An inadequate school needs to make significant improvement in order to meet the needs of its pupils. Ofsted inspectors will make further visits until it improves.

Overall effectiveness of schools

Overall effectiveness judgement (percentage of schools) Type of school Outstanding Good Satisfactory Inadequate Nursery schools 46 46 8 0 Primary schools 8 47 40 5 Secondary 14 38 40 8 schools Special schools 28 48 20 4 Pupil referral 15 50 29 5 units All schools 11 46 38 6

New school inspection arrangements have been introduced from 1 January 2012. This means that inspectors make judgements that were not made previously. The data in the table above are for the period 1 September 2010 to 31 August 2011 and represent judgements that were made under the school inspection arrangements that were introduced on 1 September 2009. These data are consistent with the latest published official statistics about maintained school inspection outcomes (see www.ofsted.gov.uk). The sample of schools inspected during 2010/11 was not representative of all schools nationally, as weaker schools are inspected more frequently than good or outstanding schools. Primary schools include primary academy converters. Secondary schools include secondary academy converters, sponsorled academies and city technology colleges. Special schools include special academy converters and nonmaintained special schools. Percentages are rounded and do not always add exactly to 100.

22 Inspection report: Bishopsford Art College, 1–2 February 2012 11 of 14

Common terminology used by inspectors

Achievement: the progress and success of a pupil in their learning and development taking account of their attainment.

Attainment: the standard of the pupils’ work shown by test and examination results and in lessons.

Attendance: the regular attendance of pupils at school and in lessons, taking into account the school’s efforts to encourage good attendance.

Behaviour: how well pupils behave in lessons, with emphasis on their attitude to learning. Pupils’ punctuality to lessons and their conduct around the school.

Capacity to improve: the proven ability of the school to continue improving based on its selfevaluation and what the school has accomplished so far and on the quality of its systems to maintain improvement.

Leadership and management: the contribution of all the staff with responsibilities, not just the governors and headteacher, to identifying priorities, directing and motivating staff and running the school.

Learning: how well pupils acquire knowledge, develop their understanding, learn and practise skills and are developing their competence as learners.

Overall effectiveness: inspectors form a judgement on a school’s overall effectiveness based on the findings from their inspection of the school.

Progress: the rate at which pupils are learning in lessons and over longer periods of time. It is often measured by comparing the pupils’ attainment at the end of a key stage with their attainment when they started.

Safety: how safe pupils are in school, including in lessons; and their understanding of risks. Pupils’ freedom from bullying and harassment. How well the school promotes safety, for example elearning.

23 Inspection report: Bishopsford Art College, 1–2 February 2012 12 of 14

This letter is provided for the school, parents and carers to share with their children. It describes Ofsted’s main findings from the inspection of their school.

3 February 2012

Dear Students

Inspection of Bishopsford Arts College, Morden, SM4 6DU

I want to thank you for the warm welcome and exceptional courtesy that many of you showed to me and the inspection team when we visited your school. We very much enjoyed hearing your views and watching you at work. We were pleased to hear that many of you feel well cared for by the school and are happy.

The inspection team looked carefully at your learning and the teaching in school and took account your views and those of your parents and carers as well as talking to the Principal and school staff. We recognise that some improvements have been secured over the past three years. We found that standards are rising and the progress that most students make has improved. However, the improvements have not taken place fast enough and the school is not where it should be. The progress you make in English is not good enough and taken overall, attainment is still very low. In particular, certain groups such as White British students and some of those who have special educational needs are not doing well enough. In addition many students are absent from school too often.

Many of you commented that behaviour in some lessons was disrupting learning, a view shared by your parents and carers. We agree with you: too much learning is lost as a result of disruptive behaviour. Some of the lessons you attend are good, but there are too many that are only satisfactory or inadequate.

Because we are concerned about the quality of education offered by the school, we have recommended that it is placed in a category called ‘special measures’. This will mean that the school will be supported to improve and inspectors, will monitor progress. We have asked the leaders of your school to:

Improve the attainment and the rate of progress made by underperforming students. Improve learning and progress in English, and ensure that all students are enabled to acquire communication skills. Reduce student absence. Make sure that teachers: o deliver lessons that are sharply focused on precise learning objectives and closely matched to your individual abilities o offer constructive feedback to you on how to do better 24 Inspection report: Bishopsford Art College, 1–2 February 2012 13 of 14

o support the development of literacy and speaking and listening skills in all lessons o foster behaviour for learning and encourage you all to actively participate in your learning. Work out what needs to be done, set up systems to get it done and check whether things are improving regularly so that changes can be made.

Emma Ing Her Majesty’s Inspector

25 Inspection report: Bishopsford Art College, 1–2 February 2012 14 of 14

Any complaints about the inspection or the report should be made following the procedures set out in the guidance 'Complaining about inspections', which is available from Ofsted’s website: www.ofsted.gov.uk. If you would like Ofsted to send you a copy of the guidance, please telephone 0300 123 4234, or email [email protected].

26 LONDON BOROUGH OF MERTON STATEMENT OF ACTION Bishopsford Arts College

Introduction The statement of action that follows sets out the Authority’s response to the OFSTED inspection report. It has been organised in line with the DCSF Statutory Guidance on “Schools Causing Concern” (2008). Each section addresses the areas required.

1. The action the LA has taken so far is set out in section one of the attached plan.

2. Additional Support a) Long term support (from February 2012 to July 2012) from a consultant Headteacher (approved by the DfE to take up interim headships in challenging schools) to support leadership capacity and help secure the rapid improvements required in outcomes and provision. b) Support from the Headteacher and staff of the Partner NLE school ( St Saviour’s and St Olave’s) c) Intensive support from LA Secondary Improvement Adviser. d) Commissioning an external SEN consultant to review SEN practice and provision and provide recommendations. e) Support to improve SEN practice from Headteacher of outstanding special school and Merton Leader of Education.

3. Arrangements to inform parents and carers a) Initial letter sent by Chair of Governors (8/3/12) b) The report will be sent to parents as soon as possible after publication. c) A letter from Merton Council Director of Children’s Services explaining the LA’s plans for the school will be sent to parents as soon as possible after publication. 27 d) A meeting for all parents will be held at the school as soon as possible after publication of the report to explain plans for the future, introduce the preferred sponsor and answer parents’ questions.

27/03/2012 1

4. Steps needed to build leadership and management capacity. a) The additional support identified in 2 above will be used to further develop the capacity of senior teachers to lead on teaching and learning. b) Consultation on creating an IEB to strengthen governance until transfer to academy status,. c) Review of priorities to ensure rigorous focus on key issues for improvement for the rest of the academic year. d) Support for subject leaders from NLE partner school colleagues in spring and summer terms 2012. e) Support from an external English consultant to raise standards in English in spring and summer terms 2012. f) Longer term the leadership and management capacity of the school will be secured by the new sponsor from September 2012.

. 5. Partner Organisations a) The school is currently a trust school with partner organisations: b) For the future, the main partner organisation will be the LA’s preferred Academy Sponsors, the Harris Federation

6. The LA does not intend to close or federate the school. A review of the increasing need for secondary school places confirms this decision.

7. The LA does intend to require that the school becomes an academy.

8. The LA will use its intervention powers to consult on replacing the governing body with an IEB.

27/03/2012 2 LA Action Plan for Bishopsford Arts College Spring/Summer Term 2012

SECTION 1: What action the LA has already taken.

1. The LA has decided that the best way to secure the necessary rapid progress is for the school to become an academy by September 2012. 2. The LA has already entered into discussions with a possible sponsor. 3. The sponsor has been selected by the LA because: • It already has an outstanding school in the borough, • The federation has a strong track record of securing improvement within the borough and neighbouring authorities, • The federation has secured the confidence of local parents. 4. The Director and her officers have met with possible sponsors (21/2/12). 5. The Director and her officers have entered into discussions with the DfE regarding the decision to academise, the choice of sponsor and the process for expediting this. (Meeting with Jackie Griffin (22/2/12). 6. The Head of Education has met the Principal of Bishopsford Arts College to share plans for the future (10/2/12, 22/2/12). 7. The Director and Head of Education have met the Chair of Governors of the college to share plans for the future (23/2/12). 8. The Director and her officers arranged for the Harris Leadership team to give a presentation at a full governing body meeting at the request of the Governing Body (27/2/12). 9. The Head of Education attended a further GB meeting at which AET made a presentation (28/2/12). 10. The Director and her officers met with the Chair and two other governors (6/3/12). 11. The Director and her officers have tabled a paper to Cabinet (27/3/ 2012 ) to seek a decision by elected members on the future of the school. The paper sets out the LA officers’ proposal to convert the 29 school to an academy with the Harris federation as the preferred sponsor. It also proposes to consult on

27/03/2012 3 replacing the governing body with an IEB to oversee immediate improvements and the transition to academy status. 12. The LA has appointed a consultant HT to support leadership capacity and help secure the rapid improvements required in outcomes and provision (from w/b 20/2/12) and agreed with the Principal the focus of his work until July 2012 (meeting on 20/2/20). 13. The LA Secondary Improvement Adviser has supported the Principal to draw up a school action plan (29/2/12 and 7/3/12).

SECTION 2: Further action

1. The LA will provide intensive support for the school to secure rapid progress from February 2012 to July 2012 with a focus on securing the best possible outcomes for current Y11 students in summer 2012 examinations. 2. Targets which the school are expected to achieve in summer 2012 are : • 5+A* -C inc English and maths 50% (FFTD estimate 38%) • 3 levels of progress KS2-KS4 English 68% (FFTD estimate 56%) • 3 levels of progress KS2-KS4 Maths 68% (FFTD estimate 51%) • VA measure of over 1000 3. Meanwhile LA officers will work with the school and its GB or an IEB, the DfE and Harris Federation ( if selected ) to achieve a smooth and rapid transition to academy status by September 2012. 4. The LA will monitor the detailed school action plan (see Section1 above), agreed between the school and the LA which will deliver immediate action on the Ofsted priorities.

27/03/2012 4 31 32

7th Floor Piccadilly Gate Store Street T 0300 123 1231 Manchester [email protected] M1 2WD www.ofsted.gov.uk

23 March 2011

Ms Sandra Peddy Chair of Governors Bishopsford Arts College Lilleshall Road Morden SM4 6DUAddress

Dear Ms Peddy

Notification of moderated judgement Bishopsford Arts College School : special measures

I am writing to inform you that the judgement that your school requires special measures has been moderated and confirmed. Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector has considered all the evidence and agrees that the school requires special measures, since it is failing to give its pupils an acceptable standard of education and the persons responsible for leading, managing or governing the school are not demonstrating the capacity to secure the necessary improvement in the school.

Thank you for your comments on the draft inspection report. As part of the quality assurance process HMI have considered these and the lead inspector’s response. In addition the inspection evidence base has been scrutinised. The lead inspector has amended the text of the report where appropriate in response to the school’s comments.

In addition some areas of the report have been amended to make the judgements clearer. The report will be subject to a final technical edit before publication. The Inspection Services Provider will provide a final copy of the report that will be published on the Ofsted web site. It is for the governing body as the appropriate authority to meet the terms of section 14 of the Education Act 2005; which requires the school to take all practicable steps to ensure that all parents receive a copy of the report within five working days of the school’s receipt of it.

If you are dissatisfied with this report it is open to you to make a formal complaint through the Ofsted complaints procedure.

I am copying this letter to the headteacher and the Director of Children, Schools & Families for Merton local authority. The Lead Inspector and the Inspection Service Provider have also been informed of this decision.

Yours sincerely

Cathy Kirby HMI Principal Officer, Quality Assurance

Cc Emma Ing HMI, Lead inspector Andrew Barker, Headteacher Merton LA Tribal Group Sean Harford, Regional Director

CABINET REPORT 28 MARCH 2012

SUBJECT: Academy Status for Bishopsford Arts College

LEAD : Governing Body

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Cabinet is recommended that: The Council considers Expressions of Interest (EOIs) for Bishopsford Arts College for proposed Academy status for submission to the Secretary of State for Education, subject to the agreement to these documents by the Governing Body, from an alternate sponsor other than the Harris Federation.

REASON FOR THE PROPOSAL The outcomes of the Ofsted Report dated 1-2 February 2012, denoting the college as requiring intervention, require the college to be considered for Academy status. This was considered by governors, proposed and agreed at the GB meeting of 8 February 2012 and ratified by the Trust on 28 February 2012.

PURPOSE OF REPORT This report sets out the basis for consideration of a sponsor other than the Harris Federation. Two sponsors have indicated that they would wish to submit EOIs for the college. The Harris Federation and the Academies Enterprise Trust.

The Harris Federation currently, successfully runs one of the high schools in the Borough. The model of the Harris Academies is one that Governors believe would not be the right model for the school following a presentation by Harris to Governors on 27 February 2012. Governors questioned whether the Harris model would provide the right learning environment for some of the most vunerable students in the authority who currently attend Bishopsford Arts College. Governors were not assured that the Harris model, which we believe would decimate the college, its ethos and culture, would provide the right environment for our students.

Council members will be mindful of the fact the Bishopsford suffered significantly from the opening of the two academies 5 years ago in terms of our continued falling student numbers and the skewed number of students with significant learning and behavioural needs that attend the college. The senior management team have produced improving outcomes for these students despite this significant disadvantage and without the benefit of academy status or indeed appropriate school improvement support from the Local Authority. Current tracking data predicts that there will be another significant increase in results this year.

% 5+A*-C including English and Maths (currently performing above FFTD expectations) 2009 2010 2011 2012 28 35 42

% 5+A*-C (currently performing above FFTD expectations) 2009 2010 2011 2012 64 70 75

1 35

Quote from Ofsted report ‘The school met government floor standards in 2011’. ‘School leaders have raised educational standards over the last four years and last year exceeded government floor standards’.

The Academies Enterprise Trust considered by Governors to be an alternate viable sponsor, has a track record of success, sponsors academies in London, sponsors academies with a PFI contract in place and was voted unanimously by Governors as their preferred sponsor following their presentation on 28 February 2012 and our GB meeting of 7 March 2012 and ratification by the Trust on 8 March 2012. An additional benefit of considering AET is that they would allow the school to continue to work with partners built up during its status as a Trust school. This includes working with the National Leader in Education allocated to the school and drawing on support from her outstanding school.

PARTIAL QUOTE FROM THE CHAIR AND CEO OF ACADEMIES ENTERPRISE TRUST (AET) We have established the AET to act as the operational body and ensure that each academy, whether from the primary or secondary phase, becomes high performing as quickly as possible.

Our core principle is to devolve accountability nearest to the point of delivery: to the Boards of Governors of the academies, to leaders at every level, and to students and adults in the classrooms.

We want to ensure that each and every one of us working in and across the AET academies is held to account to maintain and continually improve what we do for the benefit of all and to maximise educational opportunity for all.

The AET’s 10 Key Drivers are to:

1. realise the potential of every individual 2. celebrate the whole child 3. focus continuously on learning and teaching 4. maintain a perpetual cycle of monitoring, evaluation and review 5. use learning technologies to support, enhance and extend 6. promote leadership at all levels 7. provide bespoke CPD for the whole school workforce 8. build partnerships within and across the school community 9. share structures, systems and procedures 10. identify and share innovation and best practice

Governors considered that the college is indeed improving and that the college requires greater support in the areas outlined in the report which could be robustly provided by this sponsor.

Quote from Ofsted report ‘Through a carefully structured curriculum and interventions to support learning, the school has improved the proportion of students who attain five A*-C grades including English and Maths at GCSE or equivalent level.

The advantages that would have been gained from members considering an alternate sponsor would be providing the community with greater choice in terms of secondary education provision in the Borough. Governors believe that another Harris Academy significantly reduces choice for parents and students alike and would question what the longer term strategy for the Borough is regarding Academy status for their family of both secondary and primary schools. We further believe that achieving change and improvement across a local area depends on the collective vision, the leadership and management and the professional skills, of those working and living in the community.

2 36

Governors would like the Cabinet to agree to decide to go forward with both these sponsors on the assumption that Governors will not reach agreement with Officers on a single sponsor.

Governors would also like Cabinet members to be advised that the process for becoming an academy was completely disregarded by officers initially. Under their Legal Powers of Intervention until section 62(a) of the Education Act is exercised the council should consult with Governors. We do not believe we were adequately consulted about these arrangements in accordance with statutory requirements until they were significantly progressed and reported to members as one ‘choice’ of sponsor only.

Governors wish to assure officers and members that they are fully supportive of the transition to academy status as evidenced by the resolution of the GB on 8 February 2012 and the Trust on 28 February 2012. We simply wish to be included and consulted to ensure that the best sponsor is selected for the school, whilst not being subjected to undue pressure, supplied with misinformation or the GB threatened with removal.

CLOSING POINT At both academy sponsor presentations to Governors, Officers from the LA were in attendance. The Harris presentation was offered to Governors, by the Officers, as a final and the only solution as an academy sponsor for the college. Following the presentation from AET, the Officer present stated that ‘she did not see anything to make her change her mind’ and would report the same to the Director of Children Schools and Families. The Officer present did not ask any questions neither during nor after the presentation. We contend that Officers could not possibly have evaluated the needs of the school, students, parents or the community at large within the timeframe from the draft Ofsted report made available to Officers to an initial meeting with the Chair of Governors on 23 February 2012. In fact, following the recent press article in the Guardian whereby a local politician referred to Harris as being a sponsor who is being approached, parents of Bishopsford students have started asking questions as to why this is the only sponsor being considered and whether the values of the sponsor would meet the needs of their children.

Would the Officers choice of sponsor be politically driven? Is there a conflict of interest with the Officer who sits on the Harris Board?

Both the LA and the Governing Body are working towards the same goal, to secure the best education possible for its student population. We believe that proposed sponsors should be given a fair review in terms their complete service delivery, understanding that school improvement is a given.

We ask that this decision is not politically driven but is considered fairly and without bias.

3 37