Agenda item

(To receive a report which invites the Committee to consider a proposal regarding the future of Saltfleetby Church of England Primary School (Final decision))

Consideration was given to a report from the Executive Director of Children's Services, which asked the Committee to consider the future of Saltfleetby Church of England Primary School (Final Decision), which was due to be considered by the Executive Councillor for Adult Care and Health Services, Children's Services on 29 April 2016.  A copy of the full report to the Executive Councillor was attached at Appendix 1 to the report.

The Committee was asked to consider the report, and offer its comments on the proposed future of Saltfleetby Church of England Primary School.

Heather Sandy, (Chief Commissioner – Learning) took the lead on this item and explained to the Committee the statutory process that had been undertaken, with particular reference made to the statutory consultation (which had closed on 13 November 2015, and that a summary of the responses received were shown on pages 41 to 46 of the report presented).

It was highlighted that following the responses received, a discussion had taken place with the Informal Executive Board (IEB), the Parent Group, and the Local Authority at which agreement was reached to extend the timescales for the process, to allow more time to further explore options that might secure the future of the school.  It was highlighted that during this time marketing and promotion of the school had taken place to increase the number of pupils on the roll.  It was also noted that alternative federation options had been pursued by the School, Local Authority, the Diocese and CfBT. 

A solution was not however reached.  The Committee noted that there would only be a total of 13 children on the roll for 2016.  It was also reported that there were not enough pupils in the local area to sustain an educationally and financially viable primary school without relying on attracting pupils from areas closer to other schools, many of which already had surplus capacity.  As a result of the low pupil numbers in the local area and the extremely low current and projected numbers on roll, this had not allowed the IEB to be able to set a balanced budget.  The Committee was advised that there was a projected in-year deficit of circa £30k per year based on 20 pupils on roll, which would lead to a deficit of £75k by 2019/20.  

Reasons on which the final decision was based were detailed in the report under the heading of 'Reasons for Recommendations' on pages 21 and 22 of the report presented. 

Stephen Hopkins (Chairman of the Interim Executive Board) addressed the Committee and set out the rationale for requesting the closure of the school.  The IEB decision had been taken in the context of concern over the long term sustainability of the school in relation to being able to continue to offer quality education to pupils within the resources available.  The Committee noted that due to the low pupil numbers the IEB had been unable to set a balanced budget.  The school was not therefore financially viable.  Also, the school was not able to deliver the necessary new curriculum to meet the new Ofsted framework for a good school, due to the low pupil numbers.

The IEB, local authority, diocese and CfBT had pursued alternative federation options to enable the school to continue.  There had been one initial expression of federation of interest from another primary school, but unfortunately the Governing Body of the interested school had decided not to pursue further.  It was also highlighted that the other school in the federation (Theddlethorpe) would have to become an academy following the latest Ofsted inspection.  As no sponsor had expressed an interest in Saltfleetby, the two schools would be required to de-federate to secure the academisation of Theddlethorpe.

In conclusion, the Chairman of IEB felt that following all the work carried out, although regrettable, closure of the school was the right decision.

The Committee was advised from Helen Okrafo-Smart (Consultant Headteacher) that the leadership team at the school had worked hard to deliver the required curriculum, which had at times been very challenging due to the small number of children in each year group.

Clare Owen (Parent Representative from the Saltfleetby C of E Primary School) provided the Committee with a parent perspective of the importance of the school to the centre of village life, and to the children who attended the school, some of whom had special educational needs. 

Reference was also made to the previous management of the school; the provision of pre-school facilities; the dedication of staff and teachers; the role of the diocese in the process; the effect the closure would have on the community as a whole; and the effect on the school of its federation with Theddlethorpe.  At the end of the presentation, the parent representative made a request to the Committee to revoke the proposal to enable more time for roll numbers to be increased at the school.

During discussion, the following points were raised:-

·         That a sub-group of the Children and Young People Scrutiny Committee comprising of Councillors J D Hough and S R Dodds had visited the school and had found that the school was well set up, and one that undertook some excellent work;

·         That communication and relationships with the previous management could have been better.  The Committee noted that the Local Authority did not agree with the views that some of the parents and others had expressed about the conduct of senior individuals working at or for the school;

·         The negative effect the proposed closure had had on the school.  That the uncertainty of its future had resulted in some children being taken out of the school, which had then resulted in the number of pupils on the roll being reduced.  One member enquired as to whether parents who had removed their children due to the potential closure would consider bringing them back if the school's future was secured.  The parent representative highlighted that nine children had left since September 2015 and that she believed that some parents would return to the school, if it was to stay open.  It was also noted that some prospective parents had also been to look around the school and were leaving their decision open pending the decision;

·         The excellent SEN support provided by the school.  It was noted that the special needs did not bring in a significant amount of money.  It was noted further that none of the children in the school were statemented;

·         The positive attributes of a small school and the effect on its pupils.  Some of the Committee felt that the school should be given more time to increase its roll; although it was noted that it was the view of the education advisors that Ofsted would consider the school to have serious weaknesses;

·         The minimum number of pupils required to make a school financially viable.  The Committee was advised that the number of pupils required was individual to the unique nature of the school, but was based on financial modelling only and not considering any other factor, a school would normally need more than 33 pupils to make it a financially viable case, but that this would not necessarily provide educational stability and viability.  It was highlighted that the future of the funding formula and how it would affect small rural schools was also uncertain, therefore, to specify an exact viable number was neither appropriate nor future proof;

·         Concerns were expressed relating to the contents of an email received from the Saltfleetby Parish Council, and a parent; and whether as a result of the comments raised, the Committee should defer its decision until officers had looked into the issues raised.  The Committee was advised that officers were currently looking in to some of the issues raised in the said documents with the Council's legal section.  The Committee requested that an update on the concerns raised should be received by members of the Committee;

·         Some concerns were also raised with regard to the viability of the school and the impact of teaching different year groups together, and how cost effective it was to keep the school open when there were spaces available at nearby good schools;

·         Clarification was sought as to who appointed the Interim Executive Board.  Officers advised the Committee that the Local Authority put forward nominations.  The nominees needed to have educational expertise.  The Committee was advised that the final decision relating to appointments was made by the Secretary of State;

·         It was queried as to what the value of diocesan land and buildings was, and whether this could be used as collateral to keep the school open.   It was reported that the value of the said land and buildings was not known, but this would be looked into.  It was highlighted that if the land and buildings were to be sold, the proceeds from the sale would not likely be able to be used as a sustainable system for the running of the school.  The government provided funding for schools based on pupil numbers and that the funding formula could not operate in any other way;

·         It was queried what alternative options had been looked into for keeping the school open.  It was reported that the local authority, diocese and the school had all looked into alternative options.  The Committee was advised by the Church of England Added Member on the Committee that the diocese had investigated bringing the school into the diocesan multi academy trust.  However, when the school's educational standards were compared to the Ofsted framework and the church inspection framework, both of which had raised the expected standards, the school had fallen short of the criteria.  The diocese had as a result of the findings decided that it could not take the school into the multi academy trust, as there was not the capacity to support the school and it would be too great a risk for the trust as a whole.  The Local Authority had contacted other multi academy trusts to see if any could federate, or collaborate with the school.  Unfortunately, this did not bring any interest from another trust or school;

·         Clarification was sought as to the current financial situation.  The Committee was advised based on the number of pupils on roll in October 2015, it was estimated that there would be a £14,000 surplus by the end of the academic year.  It was confirmed that due to the low and projected number on roll, the school would not be able to set a balanced budget for the following year;

·         Reference was made as to whether the views of parents as detailed in the Appendix to the report had been taken into consideration, as the parents had been overwhelmingly in favour of the school remaining open, and how could the Council justify closing it.  The Committee was advised that the Department of Education's guidance stated that with regard to the views of those affected by the proposal, the greatest weight should be given to the parent's views.  It was reported that the school was not financially viable and could not provide good school places.  It was highlighted that the views of parents had been listened to, but did not outweigh the issue of a good education being provided;

·         Some clarification was sought as to the arrangement between Saltfleetby Primary School and Theddlethorpe Primary School.  The Committee was advised that the Saltfleetby Primary School was in a federation with Theddlethorpe Primary School, which would have to become an academy following its recent Ofsted inspection.  As a result the two schools would have to de-federate.  A question was asked as to why Saltfleetby Primary School could not become an academy with Theddlethorpe Primary School.  It was highlighted that the two schools were separate entities, and as such would be subject to separate Ofsted inspections, but shared an Executive Headteacher.  As mentioned early other trusts had been approached to take both schools on, but none had come forward.

The Committee was advised that if Saltfleetby Primary School was to remain open, then, based on the advice received from the Local Authority's education advisor, the school was likely to go into a category next time it was inspected by Ofsted, and therefore would also be forced to become an academy.  However, due to concerns around its financial and educational viability, the school had not attracted a sponsor.

An Amendment was Proposed and Seconded:-

"That the decision relating to Saltfleetby Primary School be delayed by a year due to the uncertainty surrounding the recent admission of two pieces of correspondence received from Saltfleetby Parish Council and parent"

Upon the Amendment being put to the vote: - five committee members voted in favour; and eight members voted against the motion, with two abstentions.

The Motion was therefore lost.

The original recommendations as detailed in the report presented were then proposed and seconded; eight members voted in favour, five members voted against with two abstentions.

The Motion was therefore carried; and it was

RESOLVED

1.    That the Children and Young People Scrutiny Committee supports the recommendations to the Executive Councillor for Adult Care and Health Services, Children's Services as set out in the report presented.

2.    That the comments as detailed above be passed to the Executive Councillor for Adult Care and Health Services, Children's Services in relation to this item.