Agenda item

Cabinet Member: Public Health & Education

Forward Plan Ref: 2018/077

Contact: Barbara Chillman, Service Manager – Pupil Place Planning, Tel: (01865) 323804/Sandra Higgs, Schools Service Manager Tel: 07917 087603

Report by Director for Children’s Services (CA6).

The County Council is seeking Cabinet approval to consult on the future of Northfield Special School, pending the outcome of the Council’s Special Educational Needs & Disability (SEND) Review.  The consultation will seek views on the future of the school based on two options, prior to any decisions being taken. In summary, the options will be to (Option A) close the Northfield School, placing current students in alternate and more suitable provision, pending the outcome of the SEND Review or (Option B) to continue to operate Northfield School as is, pending the outcome of the SEND Review.

The Cabinet is RECOMMENDED to support a public consultation on the following two options:

(a)          Close the Northfield School, placing current students in alternate and more suitable provision, pending the outcome of the SEND Review

(b)          Continue to operate Northfield School as is, pending the outcome of the SEND Review.

Cabinet considered a report that sought their approval to consult on the future of Northfield Special School, pending the outcome of the Council’s Special Educational Needs & Disability (SEND) Review.  The consultation would seek views on the future of the school based on two options, prior to any decisions being taken. In summary, the options will be to (Option A) close the Northfield School, placing current students in alternate and more suitable provision, pending the outcome of the SEND Review or (Option B) to continue to operate Northfield School as is, pending the outcome of the SEND Review.

Michelle Codrington-Rogers, Oxfordshire Federation NASUWT, objected to the opening of consultation on closure. Ms Codrington-Rogers stated that the school was more than just a building: staff were dedicated to giving their best and went above and beyond for students. Her main concern was where the children would go. Academies could not be forced to take children and this would mean they would be placed out of County. She referred to new schools being built around the County that were finding it difficult to find pupils and the money could go to supporting the pupils at Northfield School. Representations about the state of the building had been made for a long time and it seemed that finally these were being listened to. There had been a lack of strategic oversight and it was time to find a solution. Ms Codrington-Rogers welcomed the SEND Review and highlighted the impact on support of previous budget cuts. Although she was glad that there were to be no further cuts she stressed that it was time to re-invest. Her members felt betrayed by what had happened.

Diane Wilson, Oxfordshire District Secretary, National Education Union (ATL section), was concerned about the impact on students, staff and other schools were Northfield School to close. Students needed stability or it would add to their anxiety. There were transport and establishment implications of moving staff with the risk of losing experienced staff. Transfer of 70 pupils to other schools would have a considerable impact on surrounding schools and she queried what analysis of that impact had been carried out. Ms Wilson queried how schools would be equipped to support the pupils and questioned what financial and strategic plan was in place. Ms Wilson asked how the school and pupils had benefitted from the hostel closure. She further queried the motive behind the proposal which she felt was about money rather than the needs of the pupils. She felt that there was a future for the school on a new site if necessary and certainly in new buildings.

Stuart Robinson, Assistant Secretary Oxfordshire National Education Union (NUT Section), spoke against the proposed consultation suggesting that a further option was needed. The Council could provide a new school and he queried why no option had been included to rebuild the school. The option to close the school was premature before the SEND Review and seemed long term rather than short or medium term to address the immediate problem. Mr Robinson stated that the lower school and parts of the Upper school could work with temporary buildings. The School was meeting the needs of most of its pupils and the SENCO had been asked to share best practice. The costs of closure were not just financial as GCSE pupils would face disruption and others would have missed schooling. There was also the cost of losing staff and the costs of placing pupils in private provision which Mr Robinson felt had been underestimated.

Tristan Powell, Acting Headteacher at Northfield School, addressed the points in paragraph 5 of the report noting that the school had been in operation since 1980 having been built as a middle school in 1970. The issues around health and safety had been known for 25 years and were not directly linked to the poor performance of the Carillion contract. Some parts of the school were still fit for purpose. The School had recruited and retained staff and EHCPs were being met. Staff were fully trained, passionate and committed and should not be disbanded. Mr Powell did not believe there were sufficient other suitable places and any change could be traumatic for the children concerned. The detrimental impact of closing the School would be far reaching. At a meeting parents were positive about the School. The report did not refer to any plans to sell off the site with proceeds going to new build.

Councillor Emily Smith, local councillor for Abingdon North, felt that the dire situation was failing the pupils who had been let down by  government policy and a failure by this Council to address the building issues, Councillor Smith supported the consultation but felt that the options were problematic. Under Option A the children would be placed elsewhere when there were insufficient places in the County and she sought assurances that the needs of children would continue to be met. Under Option B the school was falling down around their ears. If it was to be rebuilt it would have to be as a free school or voluntary aided school. Councillor Smith questioned how the School had been allowed to get into such a poor state and stated that the education of all such pupils needed to be more effectively resourced. Councillor Smith, responding to a question from Councillor Bartholomew, confirmed that she was in favour of the proposed consultation as a way of gathering more information but she was concerned that the two options were limiting.

Councillor Emma Turnbull, Shadow Cabinet Member for Public Health & Education stated that the School dealt with some of the most vulnerable pupils, needing special support to reach their potential. The interests of the children should be first and foremost in cabinet minds. She had consulted widely and wished to pass on a number of concerns. The problems with the building had been known for some time and there was a feeling that it had been allowed to deteriorate. The costs in the addenda did not include the costs of improving the current school building. At no point were councillors briefed on the leadership and governance issues now identified leading to concerns over the transparency and openness of Council business. Councillor Turnbull queried what would happen to the site and suggested that a new educational purpose be found. If any pupils were placed in mainstream schools there would be a need to make special provision. Market provision should not proceed at the expense of council options. Councillor Turnbull referred to the implications of the Home to School Transport Policy currently being reviewed and sought an assurance that SEN transport would not be affected. Responding to a question from Councillor Bartholomew Councillor Turnbull confirmed that she supported consultation with an expanded Option B to include the transformation of the site fully costed.

Councillor Liz Brighouse, Chairman of Performance Scrutiny Committee, stated that the Committee had considered this and had been minded to support the consultation on the proviso that children were properly provided for and that lessons were learned from what happened at Northfield School. The Committee had also suggested that all children affected be spoken with before the end of July and that all EHCPs be reviewed. She emphasised that pupils had to be at the heart of this matter with a smooth transition to whatever provision was put in place. A previous speaker had referred to a mothballed school and Councillor Brighouse sought clarification on this as it seemed a better option than Hill End. The Committee were of the view that the best option was for pupils to be as close to home as possible. Out of County placements should only be used when every other option had been explored. Councillor Brighouse, responding to a question from Councillor Bartholomew, indicated that she was speaking as Chairman of the Performance Scrutiny Committee and the Committee had been minded to support the consultation as she had outlined.

Nick Graham, Director of Law & Governance detailed the statutory process as set out in the report and confirmed that this was about the informal or pre-consultation stage.

Councillor Lorraine Lindsay-Gale thanked all the speakers who had raised valid points as the Council recognised that it was a very regrettable position and she gave an assurance that the Council would tackle the situation. Alexandra Bailey, Director for Property Assets and Investment added her apology and stated that she had been brought in to address property issues and the Council were committed to resolving this issue. She stressed that having taken back control they were taking a whole County approach to needs and that all options were open in terms of property. It was about what was best for the children with an educational decision based on needs. Lucy Butler, Director for Children’s Services acknowledged how difficult it was when there was any discussion about the future of a school. However, they were operating a split site and that was not sustainable. The consultation would enable the Council to talk to children, parents and staff. The two options were looking at the short term. More alternative provision was coming on line and there would be a longer piece of work as a result of the SEND review. Responding to a question from Councillor Hudspeth about mothballed schools (mentioned by one of the speakers) Lucy Butler undertook to look at that if given the details.

Responding to further questions from Cabinet, Alexandra Bailey and Lucy Butler advised that:

1)            Following the SEN review, when looking at the longer term rebuilding was an option.

2)            It would depend on the specialist needs of individual children but provision was aimed at being more inclusive so far as possible. However, the intention was not to set children up to fail. For the children concerned specialist support would be provided by school and teachers trained specifically to meet their needs.

3)            The aim was to provide in county provision as it was recognised that keeping children close to home was beneficial.

4)            Future provision would be co-educational.

5)            Lessons were being learnt from the Northfield School situation and more widely.

RESOLVED:             (by 6 votes for with one abstention) to support a public consultation on the following two options:

(a)          Close the Northfield School, placing current students in alternate and more suitable provision, pending the outcome of the SEND Review

(b)          Continue to operate Northfield School as is, pending the outcome of the SEND Review.