Agenda item

Cabinet Member: Schools Improvement

Forward Plan Ref: 2010/109

Contact: Roy Leach, Strategic Lead, School Organisation & Planning Tel: 01865 - 816458

Report by Director for Children, Young People & Families (CA4).

Cabinet agreed in September 2009 that a feasibility study be undertaken into the replacement of Oxford School by an academy. As part of the study two parallel consultations have been undertaken: one to ascertain stakeholders' views about the legal closure of Oxford School and one seeking views about the academy that it is proposed would replace Oxford School should a decision to close it be made. The consultations were launched on 7 June 2010 and concluded on 19 July 2010 and the outcome of the closure consultation element is here reported to the Cabinet to inform a decision about whether or not to proceed with the publication of a Statutory Closure Notice.

The Cabinet is RECOMMENDED to

(a)                     consider the outcome of the consultation on the proposed closure of Oxford School to enable its replacement by an academy; and

(b)                    decide whether to proceed with the publication in September 2010 of a Statutory Notice for the closure of Oxford School, to be determined following a further six week period of representation.

Cabinet had agreed in September 2009 that a feasibility study be undertaken into the replacement of Oxford School by an academy. As part of the study, two parallel consultations had been undertaken: one to ascertain stakeholders’ views about the legal closure of Oxford School and one seeking views about the academy that it is proposed  would replace Oxford School, should a decision to close it be made. The consultations had been launched on 7 June 2010 and had concluded on 19 July 2010 and the outcome of the closure consultation element is here reported to the Cabinet to inform a decision about whether or not to proceed with the publication of a Statutory Closure Notice.

Councillor Michael Waine introduced the report CA4, at the same time responding to the points made by the speakers:

• A significant amount of supplementary resources had been put into Oxford School since the National Challenge which had supported better results, taking the School from below floor targets to just above. However, there was still a large gap with other schools and the potential to sustain the improvement was questionable;

• The previous Government had signed the project off in March and a letter had been received from the outgoing Minister for Schools, Vernon Coaker MP, wishing it every success. The new Government had equally given its full commitment to the establishment of more academies and a supportive letterhad been received by CfBT from Michael Gove MP. There had been delays, but this authority had tried hard to proceed as expeditiously as possible with a view to giving a sense of certainty to the community;

• Every effort had been made during the consultation period to reach all groups within the community, particularly parents of children at the School, to the extent that school gate meetings had been held with parents. Very few had attended the public meetings, which had indicated an indifference to the closure;

• The responses expressed by the petitioners were very important to the consultation, and their view that the School was improving was correct, but this was from a very low base;

• From experience, the Governing Bodies of the current two Oxfordshire academies were dynamic, focussed, provided good challenge and maintained direct links with the staff and parents. It was hoped that this would manifest again if another academy was to be established;

• Additional resource was not guaranteed at the moment. The Government had given their wholehearted support to the academy, but any additional support would be part of the comprehensive spending review. However, the Directorate had just been informed that £150k capital funding would be made available to support the initial refurbishment, if it should go ahead; and
• It was possible for schools to be highly competitive, but also collaborative at the same time. CfBT were committed to collaborative working with the aim of raising achievement.

Other views expressed by Councillor Waine and the other members of the Cabinet included the following:

• It was the Cabinet’s view that an academy would offer the best way forward for the community, in that it would have the tools to work in innovative ways. It would offer potential for the community to have a good school in its midst, one which could be a school of first choice. The aim was to set up, with CfBT, a base of excellence for the teaching of English, and of English as a second language;

• The younger end of the 3 – 19 age range could attend a ‘school within a school’, which would be part of the overall ethos and leadership of the Academy and a part of the overall direction of school improvement;

• No reference was made in the consultation responses and the petition to a wish for an improvement in the current attainment levels;

• The North Oxford Academy was now the first choice for many parents. It previously had a falling capacity, now it had a waiting list and its attainment levels had doubled. The Governing Body was focussed and was attracting professional people to its membership. The proposed Academy could benefit from the same.

In reference to paragraph 16 of the report, Roy Leach reported that the YPLA had since acknowledged receipt of the consultation but had indicated that it did not wish to make any contribution to the consultation.

The Cabinet, following consideration of the outcome of the consultation on the proposed closure of Oxford School to enable its replacement by an academy,

RESOLVD:               (unanimously) to proceed with the publication in September 2010 of a Statutory Notice for the closure of Oxford School, to be determined following a further six week period of representation.