ITEM CA5 CABINET – 20 FEBRUARY 2007 THE FUTURE OF DUNMORE INFANT AND JUNIOR SCHOOLS Report by Director for Children, Young People & Families Introduction 1. At its meeting of 16 January 2007, the Cabinet instructed officers to explore further, in consultation with a joint representative sub group of governors from the Dunmore Infant and Junior Schools, ways of achieving a primary school in place of separate infant and junior schools and to report back to the Cabinet on 20 February 2007 with recommendations on the primary school model that should be taken forward to formal consultation. 2. The background leading to the Cabinet decision of 16 January included a period of informal consultation on the future of the Dunmore Infant and Junior Schools because of: · The instability of leadership and management of the junior school over the past five years, culminating in the school being placed in special measures in October 2005 having been judged not to be providing children with an acceptable standard of education; and, · The lack of resolution of the leadership gap at senior management level in the junior school. 3. The objective of changing the current provision of two separate schools on the Dunmore site is to achieve consistent and sustainable high quality teaching and learning and high achievement throughout all the key stages. 4. Since the Cabinet meeting of 16 January, senior officers have met, on five occasions, with a joint representative sub group of five governors, including both chairmen of governors, drawn from the infant and junior school governing bodies and have explored in great detail the ways of achieving a primary school. The governors of the sub group have sought the views of their full governing bodies and parents of both schools and this has informed their support of the recommendations in the report. The Ways of Achieving a Primary School 5. Two models and one alternative model have been thoroughly investigated. The models are as follows: Model A – create a new primary school by closing the infant and junior schools and opening a new all through primary school on the existing sites. Model B – create a new primary school by closing the junior school and extending the age range of infant school from age 3-7 to age 3-11. Alternative Model – A federation of Dunmore Infant and Dunmore Junior Schools. There are three possible variants of this model: Model C - A soft federation of the two schools with two governing bodies, two headteachers and a joint governors’ committee with delegated responsibility for federation. Model D - A hard federation with a single governing body, a single Headteacher, the infant school headteacher. Model E - A hard federation with a single governing body, the single infant headteacher plus an executive headteacher. 6. A Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis, produced jointly by the officers and the governor representative group, of all three models, including the three variants of the federation model, is attached at Annex 1 (download as .xls file) to this report. In considering each model the group kept at the forefront of its thinking the importance of securing, for the children of Dunmore, high quality educational provision that would be sustained over time. School Improvement and Leadership Issues 7. The SWOT analysis reveals the following for each model: Model A: · Opportunity to recruit a headteacher from a national field against objective selection criteria, with relevant and recent Key Stage 2 (KS2) experience, and/or through knowledge and understanding of the whole primary spectrum from Foundation Stage (FS) to KS2. · Enables the establishment of a management structure that will address future continuity issues for both schools. · Provides consistent and cohesive leadership from the FS to KS2. · Provides seamless education from FS to KS2. Reduction of transfer disruption for KS1-KS2 children. Model B: · No need to recruit a new headteacher as responsibilities of the infant school Headteacher will be extended to provide leadership at the primary school. · Provides consistent and cohesive leadership providing that a KS2 leader is quickly recruited. · Supports more effective communication between the two schools over teaching, learning and assessment issues. · Provides seamless education from FS to KS2. Reduction of transfer disruption for KS1-KS2 children. Model C: · Preserves the leadership of the infant school headteacher but does nothing to overcome recruitment difficulties in finding a new junior school headteacher. · Does not deliver the changes required to achieve improvements and raise standards. Model D: · The chance to have one headteacher and a de facto primary school. · The greater ability to achieve consistency of performance in raising the attainment of children. · The leadership gap at KS2 remains. This may impact on the short term achievement at KS2 and may inhibit the improvement of the lower year groups, particularly Years 3 and 4. Model E: · Existing headteacher would remain in place with appointment of an executive headteacher. · Provides consistent and cohesive leadership providing that an executive headteacher is quickly found. · The greater ability to achieve consistency of performance in raising the attainment of children, but less than Models A, B and D. · Role of executive headteacher would be restricted by the retained authority of the infant school headteacher position. Authority of the executive headteacher over infant staff would be by negotiation only, with no direct line management authority. · Chains of command and decision-making process could be cumbersome and confusing. Financial and Staff implications 8. The SWOT analysis reveals the following for each model: Model A: · The staff of both schools would have to apply for posts in a new structure determined by the new headteacher and governing body. The process would be ‘light touch’ seeking to match staff to posts in the new structure. · The KS2 leadership gap would be filled by the new headteacher who would bring recent KS2 knowledge and experience. · The new school would have one budget of £1,109,898 with a set up allowance of £65,000. The new school could be eligible for Fresh Start revenue funding of £100,000 a year for three years, total £300,000, and a targeted capital grant of £100,000. Model B: · Closure of the junior school and extension of the age range of the infant school would establish the infant school headteacher as the new headteacher of the primary school so a national recruitment process would not required. · The KS2 leadership gap would not be filled until a new KS2 senior manager had been recruited. · The junior school staff would have to reapply for their jobs whereas the infant school staff would not and this creating potential for tension and division among staff. · The financial position is the same as in Model A except that the setting up cost is less in the form of an amalgamation allowance of £45,000. The new school could be eligible for Fresh Start revenue funding of £100,000 a year for three years, total £300,000, and a targeted capital grant of £100,000. Alternative model – Federation variants (Models C, D and E): · In Model C, two headteachers would be retained so a junior school headteacher would have to be appointed thus repeating the recruitment difficulties of the past five years and perpetuating the junior school leadership instability. · In Model D, the infant headteacher would become the headteacher of both schools. · In Model E, the executive headteacher would be appointed but the authority of this role could be restricted by the infant school headteacher position with line management and leadership issues complicated for both leaders and their staff. · The KS2 leadership gap in Model C and Model D, would not be resolved if recruitment difficulties persisted. In Model E, the leadership gap could be resolved by the appointment of a suitable executive headteacher. · Staff would not be required to reapply for their jobs in Model C, as this represents a continuation of the status quo, but could be required to do so as a result of restructuring in Model D and Model E. · In all three federation Models C, D and E, the two schools would retain separate budgets, which together total £1,161,556, thus giving a £51,000 revenue funding advantage over Models A and B. It would be possible to apply for £100,000 capital funding from the DfES targeted capital fund. Governance and Legal Issues 9. The SWOT analysis reveals the following for each model: Model A: · The governing body, which would consist of 16 members, would be drawn from the members of existing infant and junior school governors, thus ensuring some continuity of governance. · In legal terms, the new primary school would replace the infant and junior schools immediately following their closure. Model B: · The current governing body of the infant school (12 members) would become the governing body (16 members) of the extended school. Only vacancies created through the addition of extra places could be made available for junior school governors, who otherwise would cease to be governors. · In legal terms, the extended school would become the new primary school immediately following the closure of the junior school. Alternative Model – Federation variants: Model C: · In a soft federation both schools would retain separate governing bodies. A joint committee drawn from both governing bodies would have delegated responsibility for federation. · In legal terms, the infant and junior schools would remain separate schools and the soft federation could be dissolved at any time at the wish of either or both governing bodies. Models D and E: · In both of these hard federation models the governing body would be drawn from a nucleus of existing infant and junior school governors. · In legal terms, the infant and junior schools would remain separate schools, and the hard federation could be dissolved at any time at the wish of either or both governing bodies. Feedback from Governing Bodies and Parents of Both the Infant and Junior Schools 10. The chairmen of both governing bodies have held meetings with parents. Both governing bodies have also met separately to consider the models. The outcome is that neither governing body supported any of the federation variants and both were in favour of the creation of a single primary school. They differed on the method of achieving it. The junior school governing body voted in favour of Model A, while the infant school governing body voted in favour of Model B. The joint representative sub group of governors are in favour of Model A. The officers have taken careful note of this feedback in formulating their recommendations to the Cabinet. Conclusion 11. The officers and the joint representative sub group of both governing bodies, through the SWOT analysis, have meticulously evaluated each of the three options. Their joint view is that Model A – the creation of a new primary school by the closure of both infant and junior schools – emerges as the best way of achieving a new primary school. This is because it offers the most effective way of realising the objective of consistent and sustainable high quality teaching and learning and high achievement throughout all the key stages of primary education. RECOMMENDATIONS 12. The Cabinet is RECOMMENDED to: (a) agree that Model A – the creation of a new primary school by closure of the infant and junior schools – be adopted as the means of establishing a primary school on the Dunmore site; (b) instruct officers to issue formal consultation notices for the closure of both the infant and junior schools; (c) work further with the joint representative sub group of governors from both schools to draw up an implementation plan with the objective of opening the new primary school in January 2008, if possible; and, (d) instruct officers, on behalf of governors, to prepare a bid for Fresh Start Funding for the financial years 2007-10. KEITH BARTLEY Background papers: Cabinet report of 16 January 2007. Minutes of Cabinet meeting of 16 January 2007. Contact Officer: Irene Kirkman, Assistant Head of Educational Effectiveness Service, School Support Services, Tel: 01865 815843 February 2007
|