Meeting title: Meeting for parents/ carers with children at St Mary’s Church of (VA) Primary School,

Date: 9 July 2019 Time: 7:00pm Place: St Mary’s Church of England (VA) Primary School, Woodham Ferrers

Attendees Name Job role Directorate/team/company Clare Kershaw (CK) Director, Education County Council Assistant Director for Education - Liz Cornish (LC) Essex County Council Mid Quadrant Head of Education and Early Years Alison Fiala (AF) Essex County Council - Mid Essex Mark Pincombe School Organisation Officer Essex County Council (MP) Heather Faulkner Chair of Interim Executive Board Essex County Council (HF) (IEB) The Anglican Diocese of Tim Elbourne (TE) Director of Education St Mary’s Church of England (VA) Lorna Pigram Executive Headteacher Primary School, Woodham Ferrers St Mary’s Church of England (VA) Sam Willis Executive Deputy Headteacher Primary School, Woodham Ferrers St Mary’s Church of England (VA) James Bennett (JB) Governor (IEB) Primary School, Woodham Ferrers

Responses / discussion / who spoke 01. Introductions were made, and CK gave an overview of the work that had been done in response to the outcomes of the previous year’s closure consultation. There had been an exhaustive search to identify a Multi Academy Trust (MAT) willing to take on the sponsorship of the school. There had also been significant research on the concept of Flexi-Schooling, and its potential as an educational offer that could be made by St. Mary’s Church of England (VA) Primary School, Woodham Ferrers (hereafter St. Mary’s). She recognised that there had been pupil movement both in and out of the school since the last update had been given [in November 2018]. However, the Number on Roll remained an ongoing concern, as did the school’s financial vulnerability. And it was those two factors that underpinned the County Council’s proposal for closure.

02. Of the MATs that had been approached, the majority had already said that they were not in a position to sponsor St. Mary’s.

03. However, there had been a very late expression of interest from a Trust well known to the local authority. CK needed to take a view on whether to draw the search to a close, or grant additional time to explore that possibility.

04. It was understood that the search for a MAT could not go on indefinitely. However, as

the interested Trust was both successful and credible, additional time had been granted for it to undertake due diligence. Any sponsorship however would require the approval from the Regional Schools Commissioner. Therefore, a decision on the County Council’s next action remained on hold, until the Trust’s deliberations had been completed and it had given its l answer.

05. A further option to prevent closure (mooted by the parent body during the Autumn term) was Flexi-Schooling. LC was invited to take up the briefing to parents about what had been done around that topic.

06. Referring to the Project Group that she chaired, LC restated that its search for a MAT had been both veracious and exhaustive (with some Academy Trusts approached ‘more than once’). The Flexi-Schooling sub-group operating within the Project Group had acted with similar integrity, giving thorough consideration to how a model in which a significant number of children were Flexi-Schooled would sit within the wider operational needs of St. Mary’s and the curriculum it sought to deliver.

07. Having prepared searching questions to ask those already delivering it (on topics such as safeguarding, finance, Special Educational Needs, school organisation and attendance), the sub-group had visited Erpingham School [Norfolk] and had spoken with Rackenford School [Devon] and Hollingsclough School [Staffordshire]. Positive anecdotal evidence had been gathered about what Flexi-Schooling could do for young people and how it could raise numbers. However, it was also noted that the context at each of these schools, both in terms of the profile of their students and the range of facilities they could offer (for example, Erpingham had a ‘forest school’ that drew parents in), were very different to St. Mary’s.

08. At around the same time, (on 2 April 2019) the Department for Education had issued national guidance on elective home education, which had covered Flexi-Schooling. This clarified that it was the parent or carer who initiated Flexi-Schooling arrangements (rather than a school or local authority), and that granting such requests was a decision for individual Headteachers (with no right of appeal should they be refused).

09. The national guidance was also very clear that a Flexi-Schooled child could not be dis- applied from the National Curriculum and/ or testing. This was a full time educational offer that was split between school and home, for which the school was accountable. For that reason, the relationship with parents needed to be strong, in terms of the school’s capacity to find out what was happening at home.

10. There was no argument that an appropriate application of the Flexi-Schooling remit could bring significant benefits to a school. However, the number of children needed to make St. Mary’s sustainable via this route carried with it the risk of having a detrimental impact upon staff (as Flexi-Schooling brought with it additional work).

11. Acting on the sub-group’s advice, a very clear set of policies/ criteria had been devised by the IEB, against which parental applications for Flexi-Schooling at St. Mary’s could be assessed.

12. HF said that the views of staff had been canvassed regarding Flexi-Schooling. The school’s policy could be found on its website. This set out tight criteria, including not accepting any new children into Year 6, and not going over PAN in any Year Group. Any parent signing up must participate in a periodic review of the arrangement; to be a successful partnership, it needed to be understood that the school was responsible for a Flexi-Schooled child’s whole education. And as a consequence it would cease any arrangement that it found to be unsatisfactory.

13. The school would review each of the Expressions of Interest it had received against its published Flexi-Schooling policy and criteria. It would send a letter to parents informing them of its current position, and would ask them if they wished to take forward their respective interest on that basis.

The following points were made from the floor, with answers noted where given.

14. Q: How many children have applied to come to the school in September 2019? MP said that four offers had been made in the normal admissions round, of which three were positive expressions of interest in attending the school. The fourth parent got none of their stated preferences, and was allocated St. Mary’s as the nearest school with space. That said, there was no guarantee that all four children would turn up in September.

15. As a new parent, St. Mary’s was my preference because I put my faith in you keeping it open. All of the other local schools we selected now require us to go on a waiting list. MP said that children joining the roll this year would have a guaranteed place at Collingwood for September 2020 (assuming St. Mary’s had closed). This commitment carried over from the Autumn consultation, where the aim had been for the school to close in September 2019.

16. Q: How many letters are going out concerning Flexi-Schooling? JB suggested around 48 to 50, although these were yet to be broken down into Year Groups. HF cautioned that were these applications predominantly for the same Year Group then the school would be unable to take them all.

17. Q: Where does your [net capacity figure of] 105 come from? Fourteen times seven is 98, so we could never reach 105! MP said that based on space, the classrooms at St. Mary’s were deemed suitable for 28 children, with the school organising into mixed-age classes (two times fourteen being 28). JB added that the school could be required to take more than 28 in a class, in circumstances where [the school was full and] a parent won an appeal.

18. Q: What is your timeframe now? CK said that whilst Flexi-Schooling might bring in some extra pupils, it was not by itself the solution and could not be allowed to destabilise the school.. For that reason she needed to hear from the MAT that was interested in sponsoring the school, to determine what happened next. In terms of closing St. Mary’s at the end of the next Academic Year (if that becomes the intention) then a decision was required by the second week of September. But with the end of term approaching, it was considered important to update parents on the position as it currently stood.

19. Q: Can you name the interested MAT? CK said that she did not think that appropriate whilst it was still conducting due diligence. But should it reject the opportunity to sponsor St. Mary’s then its name would be added to the list of MATs that had already reached that position.

20. Q: So has this MAT been sitting on the information [that the St. Mary’s sponsorship

opportunity existed]? CK said that she did not believe that to be so, it being more likely that the MAT learned of the opportunity as a result of the Project Group’s proactivity. She added that although the MAT was not quite as geographically close as people might want, the local authority knew it to be a good sponsor with a small school already in its Trust. Once again it was emphasised that any interest in sponsorship needed to be credible [as this one was considered to be], because St. Mary’s remained financially vulnerable, and Flexi-Schooling alone would not change that.

21. Q: If the school stays open a year and pupil numbers dwindle, what happens then? CK said that numbers would be monitored closely, and that the County Council had options should the described circumstances transpire. For example, it could move the closure forward to the spring. In terms of parental preference, a commitment had been given for a guaranteed place at Collingwood. So it could be that the partnership with Collingwood was fostered earlier.

21. Q: So our Number on Roll is 52 and 20 Flexi-Schoolers come. What is the number of pupils we need [to be viable]? CK said that the break-even point of the school was determined by a number of factors.

22. Ford End Primary School sits at around 76 pupils. CK said that the 70 children that had been spoken of during consultation were full time. So whilst funding followed Flexi-Schoolers, the dynamic of that needed to be looked at. Plus there could also be increased turbulence arising from admitting Flexi-Schoolers, as those arrangements would be under termly review and would end if deemed to be no longer appropriate. Numbers coming from the community remained insufficient, whereas Ford End enjoyed support within the village it served.

23. Q: How many Flexi-Schoolers coming in in September is a good number? JB said that about 70 pupils would break the school even financially, although it would not place St. Mary’s in a position to pay back the £60K deficit it owed to the County Council (which it was required to do within three years). And so a cycle would happen where just to maintain St. Mary’s current position an increased number of Flexi- Schoolers would be needed year on year, in order to offset the diminishing number of Full Time pupils coming in. Except the school could not actually admit Flexi-Schoolers in those sorts of numbers, because of the limitations of its PAN.

24. Q: What is needed to catch up on the ‘arrears’? JB said bigger numbers coming into Reception.

25. A dilemma faced by three sets of parents who had siblings looking to join the school roll in 2020 was explained. It seemed preferable to seek admission for the older sibling at a different school at this time, because the admissions policy of the receiving school made the case for admitting a younger sibling stronger (when that time came), than would have been the case under catchment.

26. I have emailed 10 schools about a Yr. 2 place. And yet I am told there is nothing. MP said that there was a commitment from Collingwood to work with parents in regard to siblings.

27. It was always going to take time to turn this school around, yet you have given us one

year to double its size! CK said that Flexi–Schooling, now we had explored it, was not the correct strategy to achieve that [sort of growth].

28. Q: When will you have an answer from the interested Trust? CK said that an answer was expected shortly, and that parents would be told before the end of term if it was negative. TE added that were the answer ‘a yes in principle’, a lot of work would still needed to be done by the Trust, to decide how it would organise St. Mary’s. For example, would Canewdon and Rawreth still be involved? But the Trust ‘could not be declared a runner’ until that was the case.

29. So that just drags things on! Q: Why can’t we be told that number [first mentioned at 21.]? JB offered to bring numbers to the Parent Group to demonstrate how the school would run out of space. CK admitted that she could simply have told the Trust that its Expression of Interest had come too late. But she had chosen not to, because it was a credible sponsor. The Trust needed to consider St. Mary’s financial vulnerability; and if it wanted to take things further then a tight project plan would need to be put in place. The impact of this uncertainty upon parents was understood. If no progress had been made by September, then the County Council would need to reach a decision to close the school.

30. It’s amazing we’ve had 12 start since January, given your consultation! JB said that the recruitment problem was a historic one, dating back some three years, and a point had been reached where the school could not make those ‘lost’ pupil numbers up. However, as a business, the MAT was better able to absorb a loss at one of its schools on the understanding that this would be offset by a profit elsewhere.

31. Q: Why wasn’t St. Mary’s threatened with closure 3 years ago? Why wasn’t it dealt with then? Why have you let it drag on? CK suggested that this had all been addressed in detail during the original consultation.

32. You should have acted much quicker! AF said that the advice to the Governing Body at the time was to seek a plausible, credible Federation but, despite the best efforts of TE and herself, this didn’t happen.

33. Q: What if 30 Flexi-Schoolers came in September who all met your criteria? Are you saying they would make no difference? JB said that it would not be possible to admit all of the Flexi-Schoolers needed to repay the school’s deficit without running out of space. He added that small schools across the country were under pressure because funding was coming down. Every year the block of funding just for being a school was under threat, and eventually it would go. Ford End would also be facing its own financial pressures.

34. The school has no legal right to check on what we’re doing at home [as part of a Flexi- Schooling arrangement].

JB disagreed on the basis that parents who did not agree to the school monitoring a Flexi-Schooling arrangement (as required by its policy) would not be offered one.

35. But your criteria are full of stipulations. LC agreed that that was so, as the interests of the children in full time education at St. Mary’s also had to be considered. CK added that being organised in mixed-age classes already presented a challenge, before Flexi-Schooled children were even brought in. A class teacher could only cope with so much happening, which was why it needed to be managed. The school owned the results, so what could not be allowed to happen was a dramatic decline in results as a consequence of offering Flexi-Schooling. That would leave the school vulnerable regarding standards, Ofsted would come in and judge teaching to be inadequate and Flex-Schooling would have to be stopped. There was no magic number of Flexi-Schooled children that could save St. Mary’s and, whilst CK appreciated it was a harsh message for parents to hear, from the County Council’s perspective there was sufficient surplus capacity in the surrounding area to allow it to close. This was a consideration that had to be taken into account. And so the MAT option was the viable way forward, with Flexi-Schooling providing a potential boost to the funding of the MAT. JB added that if 20 Flexi-Schoolers turned up in September then that would look very positive to the MAT.

36. Q: Are the MAT aware that we offer Flexi-Schooling? JB said that the Flexi-Schooling policy had been included in the information supplied to the MAT.

37. Q: Is the MAT aware that 1,000+ houses are to be built in this area, producing 300+ children? JB said that it was, because that housing was set out in the Local Plan. He added that ECC took no account of those additional numbers (because planning permission was yet to be granted for those developments) but the MAT did, because it was a business planning for the longer term.

38. At the time of consulting to close Chetwood, ECC knew that numbers were falling at St. Mary’s. But nevertheless Chetwood closed. And now the County Council comes back with those same reasons to close St. Mary’s! CK said that the financial climate in which schools now operated was far different from where it stood ten years ago. But the decline in pupil numbers was at the heart of both closure proposals. She added that were new pupils forecast to come through for St. Mary’s then that would be factored in to the County Council’s decision making.

39. Last night you told staff we would not close until the end of the next Academic Year, yet tonight you said it could close early in the Spring. CK conceded that this was a ‘slight change’ to the position set out the previous evening, although in fairness the staff had asked what would happen were pupil numbers to dwindle and, after consideration, this had come back as the answer. The end of an Academic Year was of course the ideal time to transition to a different school but, were conditions to require it, the closure date could come forward. MP said that the statutory process that governed the closure of the school would set a closure date at the end on the next Academic Year [31 August 2020]. If all parties

agreed that bringing it forward was in the best interests of the children still on roll at the school then it could close earlier than that. But this would require universal agreement before it happened.

40. Q: When will we know? What is the minimum notice you can give us? CK said that that commitment was to close at the end of the Academic Year. But were a significant drop in pupil numbers to occur and the educational experience for the remaining children not be deemed high enough for everybody’s satisfaction, then the County Council might consider changing that. MP reiterated that the above would happen only if all parties were in agreement that it should.

41. Q: What sort of numbers are we talking here? 50 kids? 20 kids? CK said that it would depend upon the Year Groups that those remaining children were in. For example, if five children remained in a class that could be run to deliver good quality education until the end of the Academic Year then that is what Essex County Council would do. Its primary commitment was to educate those children currently at the school.

42. Q: What if pupil numbers hold, but staff numbers dwindle? AF said that a three class structure would be maintained, and that the local authority had the resources to allow that to happen.

43. How many children will we have in September? MP suggested that if 14 left from Year 6 and three entered at Reception, that number would be 43.

44. Q: Can we have another meeting in September? CK committed to holding a further meeting early in the term, attended by herself and the Cabinet Member for Education.

45. Q: If the school does close and we need to get the bus to Collingwood, where is the pick-up point? Will those arrangements be sorted out in time?

46. Q: … and if we leave St. Mary’s early for Collingwood can we still have the bus? CK reminded parents that the guaranteed place at Collingwood only came into being once St. Mary’s closed.

47. Q: Can we have a communication in July if the MAT option is still in play? CK said that there would be a communication, and that it would include the date of the September meeting. And if the Trust was a going concern at that time then it could be spoken about too.

48. In summary, CK said that if the decision was to close then her commitment was to the principle of that happening at the end of the Academic Year. But nor could she not respond to potentially 20 to 30 children leaving the school in advance of that date. TE added that the decision taken would not be based upon raw numbers alone, but whether the education for those who remained was of sufficient quality. (By way of illustration, this meant that 10 children leaving from one class would be a very different scenario to 10 children leaving from three classes.) The final decision would be driven by the educational interests of the children who were left, which depended upon

individual learning trajectories as well as numbers. Such a decision could only be taken collectively, to include the parents of the children who remained, and would not be taken for the convenience of those who managed the school.

49. CK gave a brief summary of the action points that had arisen during the course of the evening (i.e. the update letter to parents and the further commitment to meet them).

The meeting closed.