Agenda item

Purpose: To continue the review into the effect of schools becoming academies on the capacity of the Local Education Authority with information provided by Paul Dick, Headteacher of Kennet School. 

The Committee considered information provided by Paul Dick, Headteacher of Kennet School which had just converted to an Academy.

Mr Dick made the following points by way of background to Kennet’s decision to take academy status:

·                    The creation of academies was a policy of the Coalition Government and was intended to enable successful schools to further improve. This could be viewed as a positive way forward for schools, but the potential reduced impact on Council services could be concerning for the Council. As a Government requirement it was highly likely that more schools would follow Kennet’s lead.

·                    The role of Kennet in helping young people to become independent and confident individuals was unchanged and would continue to be the focus.

·                    A benefit was additional finances. Schools were able to predict their likely funds for their first year as an academy based on a Government toolkit and for Kennet this identified increased funding. Funding entitlements were also detailed in a document provided by the Secretary of State for Education. Academy status brought additional responsibilities, but it was believed that these could be delivered more efficiently and cost effectively. Whether this level of funding would continue in future years was, of course, uncertain. There were some anomalies, which included whether academies needed to pay Value Added Tax.

·                    The independence gained from becoming an academy was very liberating.

·                    There were no extreme reasons for moving away from the Local Authority (LA), but it was cited that some Council services provided to schools did not have a full understanding of a school’s needs and this did contribute to the decision to become an academy. The Education Service was excluded from this. However, many schools needed the Council’s support and the performance issues of some meant they would not be suitable or eligible to take academy status.

·                    There were lessons for the Council to learn for future. Although the Council did offer its services, it was felt that this should be seen as a business opportunity in maintaining a critical mass, continuing to support poorer performing schools/other non academies and providing services to academies.

·                    The ability to move gradually away from the national curriculum was another attractive factor. Members were assured that the syllabus for GCSE and A Level studies would still work towards appropriate examinations. However, a carefully managed rolling programme of review had commenced for the curriculum delivered to years 7, 8 and 9. This included identifying those areas which were not felt to be necessary and allowed the opportunity to enhance education for and encourage more enthusiasm from young people. This would also be a motivator for staff in teaching something more worthwhile and making the curriculum fit for purpose. The option of better utilising local resources also become possible, i.e. Thatcham reed beds. The year 7 intake for September 2011 would be working on a new curriculum.

A significant amount of questioning then followed from Members and, in response, Mr Dick made the following points:

·                    Schools were required to consult with staff. A meeting was held with Kennet staff and their responses had been largely positive or, at worst, neutral. There were of course questions relating to job security, pay and conditions etc and these could be topics of concern in some schools.

·                    While pay and conditions could be varied by an academy, the pension scheme for teachers was nationally imposed. A teacher who was changing jobs from an academy to a maintained school would not see any changes to their pension. Academies would take the role of payroll provider from the Council, but many external companies provided payroll services elsewhere and had the necessary expertise.

·                    The response from teaching unions to consultation had been less supportive.

·                    The potential perception among parents that academies were associated with failing schools was noted. In the case of Kennet, attempts to disavow parents of the misconception were being dealt with by, for example, adding (outstanding academy) on the School’s letterhead.

·                    The Government had indicated a wish that academies support other, less successful, schools, but had been dismissive as to its extent and it was felt to be a light touch requirement. No detail had been requested as to how this was to be delivered. However, Kennet did a lot of work with and for local schools in the area and it was hoped that this would continue. Financial benefits might even allow such activity to be enriched. This included Trinity School as Kennet’s partner school. The eventual goal for Trinity remained as having their own Headteacher and Governing Body.

(Councillor Alan Macro joined the meeting at 5.50pm).

·                    Partner/feeder primary schools were contacted as part of the consultation process. Those that responded were supportive and no concerns had been raised. The responsibilities of becoming an academy were less attractive to primary schools as they had less capacity.

·                    Consultation with parents took the form of referring them to the DfE website and a public meeting was held with a relatively high level of engagement. 94% of those in attendance were supportive of Kennet becoming an academy.

·                    A change in a school’s fortunes in relation to a change in senior personnel was a potential issue in any school.

·                    Academies had the power to consider changing their catchment area pending a period of consultation. However, consideration would still need to be given to the School Admissions Code. This could be extending the catchment or reducing it if an academy was oversubscribed. Kennet had no intention of extending its catchment as it was only just able to provide enough places for catchment area pupils. There was also no intention to increase the size of the school to allow for more pupil numbers as it was felt that the school was already operating at the optimum level for a good secondary school.

·                    The only change to Kennet’s Governing Body was that the more senior Governors became members of what had become a limited company. The role of the remaining members was unchanged. One member of the Governing Body was permitted to be a Local Authority Member.

·                    Services provided by the Council to schools were covered by many different contracts. Kennet had taken the view that it would be ideal for all of its services to be operated or managed by the Academy Trust. It was hoped that negotiating arrangements individually would benefit Kennet as opposed to buying into arrangements arranged by the Council and possibly paying more. It was also hoped that contracts of a higher quality could be negotiated. There were however some services provided by the Council that would be retained. These were primarily specialist areas such as maintenance of alarms, sports equipment, electrical work etc. A positive example of a service arranged by the Council was the catering and cleaning contract. The Council had some expertise and provision of services to academies was a business opportunity.

·                    The risk of employing an external contractor was that they could be unfamiliar with a school’s needs. Three references would be requested before employing any external contractor.

·                    The positive work of the physical disability and hearing impaired units would continue as before. The success of these units attracted parents from beyond Kennet’s catchment. The decision with regard to admission to these units rested with the LA and linked with the statementing process. It was the agreement of both Kennet and the Council that this was the appropriate location for these units.

·                    It was not Kennet’s intention to seek commercial sponsors. Although some good contacts had been established for specialist areas of education.

·                    As Kennet was considered to be an outstanding school, since the Ofsted inspection undertaken in 2008, they would not receive routine inspections unless this was requested by parents. However, Ofsted would still conduct a paper based annual performance assessment and it was likely that some subject based inspections would take place. In addition, the Academy would remain accountable to its pupils, their parents and Governors.

·                    The Government was eager for schools to become academies within as short a timeframe as possible. Members commented that the speed with which this could happen was a concern for those schools without the strong structure already in place at Kennet.

·                    Kennet wanted to continue with the current arrangements for the leisure centre but this involved a very complex legal process which was an added complexity to Kennet becoming an academy. The importance of lawyers working closely together with the Property Service was highlighted by Mr Dick. David Appleton added that all parties were working towards continuing arrangements as before and the dual use agreement had been refreshed on that basis.

·                    Kennet hosted an internet hub for eight primary schools and the local library. It was felt that the internet contract was overly expensive and work was ongoing to negotiate an improved deal. Members highlighted the importance of addressing any concerns to allow this arrangement to continue.

Shiraz Sheikh commented that the transition of Kennet to academy status and a limited company needed formal legal agreements to meet the requirements of the Government, the Council’s Constitution and the diligence of the Academies Act. Legal requirements had needed to be met before the transition could be concluded.

Ian Pearson stated that the Council was confident with Kennet’s ability to run its own affairs. A series of positive discussions had been held between both parties in ensuring as smooth a transition as possible.

However, the Council needed to take a different view from that of an academy in considering the best interests of all children across the District. In terms of the Council providing challenge to an academy, this was possible to a degree via the Council services being purchased.

There was an issue with the Government’s current formula which allocated funding based purely on pupil numbers. Level of need, which was a consideration of the Council when allocating centrally held funding, had not been factored in the Government’s formula. The Government intended the Pupil Premium, proposed to commence in September 2011, as a way of meeting this need. The needs of small schools were reflected in the funding provided directly to schools. Mr Dick added that consideration was needed of a school’s unit cost per pupil in comparison to the average and the outcomes achieved. Councillor Barbara Alexander pointed out that while small schools incurred additional costs, it was often the case that better outcomes were achieved for its pupils.