Issue - meetings

This report provides a summary of the informal consultation undertaken between January 2025 and February 2025 on the proposal to amalgamate Malorees Infant School and Malorees Junior School as one primary school for children aged between 3 – 11, including provision for nursery aged children.  The report recommends a move to formal consultation through publication of a statutory notice on the closure of Malorees Junior School, the expansion of the age range at Malorees Infant School and the change of name of Malorees Infant School to Malorees Primary School to achieve the amalgamation.

Prior to considering the report, Cabinet noted the comments and concerns raised by Patrick Martin (NEU representative), Michael Cleary (staff representative) and Aidan Reilly (local parent representative) in relation to the proposed amalgamation of Malorees Infant & Junior School.  These included the lack of perceived benefit to the school community arising from the amalgamation given the school was already operating as a Federation with a single Governing Body and senior leadership team along with the uncertainty over the rebuild proposals and potential financial impact on the funding available to the school moving forward, which it was pointed out was already in deficit.

Whilst acknowledging the concerns highlighted, Councillor Muhammed Butt (responding as Leader of the Council following the apologies for absence received from Councillor Grahl) took the opportunity to assure the school staff and parent community that the approach being recommended did not include any proposed redundancies or changes in the terms and conditions of school staff; would retain Malorees as a community school and not lead to the risk of academisation and had been designed to secure access to DfE funding that would provide long overdue and transformative infrastructure investment for the rebuilding of both school buildings recognising the school as an important community asset in Brondesbury Park.  In clarifying the funding reduction outlined in the report, it was pointed out this reflected the move towards the National Funding Formula, set by the DfE, with the Governing Body together with Council commitment to securing the schools financial resilience and confident of the plans in place to manage the funding reduction without an impact on staff.

In recognising the offer extended by the Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Schools to meet with NEU representatives in order to continue discussions around the proposals moving forward Cabinet RESOLVED:

(1)        To approve a period of formal consultation, through publication of a statutory notice, on proposals to:

(a)        Close Malorees Junior School;

(b)        Expand the age range of Malorees Infant School to admit children aged between 3 – 11; and

(c)        Change the name of Malorees Infant School to Malorees Primary School

Eligible for call-in: Yes

Deadline for submission of call-in: 6pm on Monday 14 April 25

Prior to considering the report, Councillor Muhammed Butt (as Leader of the Council) welcomed Patrick Martin (NEU representative), Michael Cleary (staff representative) and Aidan Reilly (local parent representative) to the meeting who he advised had requested to speak in relation to the proposed amalgamation of Malorees Infant & Junior School.

In opening the contributions, Patrick Martin, advised that whilst addressing Cabinet on behalf of members from the National Education Union from both schools (the majority of whom were opposed to the amalgamation proposal) he was also a specialist teacher working across both schools.  In terms of concerns highlighted these included what was felt to be the lack of perceived benefit to the school community arising from the amalgamation given the school was already operating as a Federation with a single Governing Body and senior leadership team along with uncertainty over the progress and viability of the DfE refurbishment/rebuild proposals, which were still to be confirmed and potential financial impact on the funding available to the school moving forward, with it estimated that the proposal may cost the school up to £186k annually representing a 5% cut in funding.  Whilst supporting the need for refurbishment of the school it was felt the impact any additional cut in funding would have on the learning and care being provided for pupils at the school, particularly the most vulnerable, also needed to be recognised with the school already in deficit and a majority of NEU members therefore opposed to the proposals.

In support of the concerns expressed, Michael Cleary (representing staff from both schools) advised of the impact which the delay in the new build/refurbishment scheme still to be progressed under the DfE fast track scheme had created in terms of an NCIL funding bid for a multi-use games area submitted by the Junior school being lost.  Whilst acknowledging that concerns relating to a potential land sale had been eased following discussions with the Council, it was pointed out that staff still remained uncertain given the process being undertaken to change the status of land owned by another local foundation school in Kilburn Park from educational to non-educational use and the increasingly uncertain and challenging context relating to the viability of any future rebuild or refurbishment scheme being delivered given the economic situation and resulting building delays and increased costs.  In view of the financial impact on the school Mr Clearly ended his comments by once again highlighting the extent of opposition from staff and the wider school community towards the amalgamation proposal, which he hoped would be recognised in the final decision made.

As a further and final contribution, Aidan Reilly (local parent representative) was then invited to address the meeting who advised he was also speaking in opposition to the amalgamation proposal with the following concerns raised.  Firstly, it was felt that any decision made to progress to formal consultation would contradict the outcome of the initial consultation on the basis that 81.7% of those who had responded had indicated they did not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9