Agenda item
Academies and Free Schools
This report updates the Committee on the changes in types of schools in the borough, including academies and free schools.
Minutes:
Sara Williams (Assistant Director, Early Help and Education) presented a report updating the committee on the changes in types of schools in the borough. As with many other local authorities, Brent had a mixed economy of schools; most of its secondary schools were now academies, whilst the majority of its primary schools remained community or voluntary aided schools. It was anticipated that the transition of Brent’s remaining maintained schools to academies would be incremental. However, if the council wished to establish new schools in the borough, these would have to be delivered via the free schools route, with the council advertising via the Department for Education (DfE) for a free school provider. In view of this, the council had developed a set of partnership criteria but had not yet proposed any new school developments. There were, however, two sites for new schools that were likely to become available as a result of two developments. In addition, a free school which had been approved for a different borough had been relocated to Brent, with the DfE having purchased a site from the College of North West London. It was emphasised to the committee that the culmination of these changes on a national scale had resulted in the growth of an increasingly prominent autonomous school sector and it was judged that this pointed to the end of the local authority as a direct and large scale provider of support to schools.
Sara Williams explained that despite this changing role, local authorities retained a significant number of legal duties in respect to education and the wider needs of children as set out in the Statutory Guidance on the roles of the Director of Children’s Services and the Lead Member for Children’s Services, issued in 2012. In particular, educational attainment and school improvement remained important issues for the pursuit of borough prosperity and the equality of life chances for Brent’s young people. Research commissioned by the LGA and the Association of Directors of Children’s Services (ADCS) identified that the key to future school improvement was the development of a schools-led partnership working with the local authority. This partnership would enable schools to provide support to each other, as well as jointly commission external support. The Brent Schools Partnership (BSP) was currently in the early stages of development, having been launched in October 2012. The council would continue to work closely with all of Brent’s schools to represent the interest of pupils and parents across the borough. The council also provided an extensive offer of traded services to schools and further developments in the range of services offered were planned for 2013/14.
Sara Williams advised that new education funding arrangements for local authorities and academies would come into force for 2013-14, in the form of the Education Services Grant (ESG). The ESG would be allocated on a per-pupil basis to local authorities and academies according to the number of pupils for whom they were responsible, with each pupil attracting £116. In addition, local authorities would receive an extra £15 for all Brent pupils for the statutory duties that did not transfer to academies. As the new figure of £116 per pupil was was significantly less than academies had been receiving thus far and the DfE had agreed transitional protection for academies, to be funded from the DfE budget. ESG allocations for 2013/14 were still pending but it was expected that approximately £6.2 million would transfer out of Brent’s overall funding with circa £3.9 million coming back to the council for its maintained schools. The remaining £2.3 million would be allocated to Brent’s academies. The expected level of funding adjustments had been incorporated in to the appropriate budgets for 2013/14.
In the subsequent discussion, the committee raised several issues. With regard to the new free school which was being established in Brent, further information was sought about its admission arrangements and how the establishment of new free schools would impact the council’s projections of demand for school places. It was also queried whether the council could reduce the pressure on school places by working with other local authorities. Noting the development of the partnership criteria, the committee queried whether the council was proactively approaching groups to identify potential free school partners, particularly in light of the two sites that were likely to become available for new schools in the borough. The committee further queried what resources the council was contributing to the BSP. It was queried how the council intended to work with academies and free schools to ensure it continued to meet its equality objectives, particularly in relation to educational achievement and the needs of groups at risk of underachievement. The committee raised a concern regarding how the council would ensure that the appropriate health and safety requirements were met across all of Brent’s schools, noting that the council had a duty to ensure the health and safety of all of its pupils. This concern was raised with particular reference to potential issues at the site for the new Michaela Community School.
Sara Williams explained that free schools would be required to abide by the Schools Admissions Code. The new free school, Michaela Community School, would be admitting pupils using a banding process, similar to that which was used by the Capital City Academy. If neighbouring boroughs established new free schools this could significantly impact the borough’s projections regarding demand on school places. It was emphasised that these projections took into consideration several factors and planning both within and cross borough was difficult.
Turning to the issue of the council actively pursuing the creation of new schools in Brent, Sara Williams explained that the two potential sites were dependent on developments which had been delayed. The Community Infrastructure Levy from these developments only became available to the council at a particular point in the process and so the council could not pursue these options immediately. It was thought that these sites would become available in 2016/17. It was confirmed that the council was proactively, but informally communicating with potential free school applicants. A preliminary investigation of potential partners for free schools had been undertaken but had not been progressed further as the council was not in a position to develop a firm proposition at this time. It was noted that some free school applications had been approved by the DfE without their having a set location and this offered potential for further exploring partnership opportunities. During its preliminary investigations, none of the twelve prospective free school applicants had fully met the council’s partnership criteria, particularly the requirement to evidence their ability to deliver school improvement. This was thought to be potentially difficult for certain groups which had formed for the particular purpose of establishing a free school and did not therefore, have a history of achievement to evidence their capabilities. The council was currently managing the demand for school places through phased school expansion, which was considered to be the most financially efficient solution at the present time. Councillor Arnold added that it was important that the additional school places were created when they were needed which for secondary schools was not thought to be until 2017.
The committee was informed by Sara Williams that the council was assisting the development of the BSP and had, in the current financial year, allocated a small amount of funding to allow staff to be seconded from schools. It was good practice to have an effective schools partnership in place and it was therefore in the council’s interest to help it evolve. Councillor Arnold explained that the council was giving Brent’s schools the time needed to take ownership of the BSP. A steering group was now in place and BSP would be recruiting a director, in partnership with the council in the near future. With regard to the council meeting its equality duties, it was highlighted that as public sector bodies, non-maintained schools would be equally required to meet the public sector equalities duty, which would include having an equality scheme in place. It would not be the role of the council to ensure that the non-maintained schools complied with this but it would be able access data on attainment against background characteristics. Similarly, the council did not have any regulatory powers to ensure that non-maintained schools complied with health and safety requirements, but the council would seek to work with the schools and would share the recommended health and safety policies and guidance.
Mrs Gouldbourne advised that two consultation events had been scheduled by Michaela Community School; one on 26 March 2013 and the other on 4 April 2013. Both of these events would take place within the school holidays which it was considered was prohibitive for teachers and parents. Sara Williams confirmed that there would be an officer presence at these events.
Resolved:
(i) that the report be noted;
(ii) that the committee undertake to write a letter to the Secretary of State regarding the difficulty faced by the local authority in ensuring adequate health and safety standards for Brent Children in schools over which the council had no official influence, drawing on the experiences provided by members of the committee and appointed observers of the committee.
</AI6>
<AI7>
Supporting documents: