Agenda item

Report of the Corporate Director of Children’s Services

The Chairman having declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item and left the room, the Vice Chairman, Councillor Paul Osborn, took the chair.

The Committee considered a report of the Corporate Director of Children’s Services, which set out the context, history, Harrow Council response and work undertaken relating to the transfer of seven Harrow high schools to Academy status.

It was reported that Harrow had embarked on one of the largest transfers to Academy status in the country, and the Portfolio Holder for Schools and Colleges, who was present, stated that this had required a huge effort across the Council.  He was very proud of the officers and what had been achieved.  He was also pleased that procedures had been put in place and lessons learnt from the process, which could be drawn on in the event that other schools wished to transfer in the future.

Members expressed surprise that so many Harrow high schools had wished to transfer given that the Council had historically had a good relationship with its schools and had provided them with good quality support.  They questioned the reasons for this and whether any primary schools had expressed an interest in following suit.  The Corporate Director of Children’s Services highlighted that only schools rated by Ofsted as ‘outstanding’, or ‘good’ with one or more outstanding features, could apply for Academy status, and that Harrow was one of few Boroughs with a large number of schools fulfilling those criteria.  She also suggested that there might be a view among the schools that the Authority had spent more capital expenditure on secondary schools in recent years and that future capital programmes were likely to focus on primary schools; the secondary schools might therefore feel that they could secure more funding for capital improvements from central government.  To date, two primary schools had shown some interest in transfer to Academy status.  It was nationally recognised however that most primary schools did not operate at a scale that made transfer financially straightforward.  Primary schools, in partnership with the Council had established the Harrow Schools’ Improvement Partnership in order to support and assist primary schools.

There was concern about the impact on those schools which were not converting to Academy status.  It was advised that schools, including Whitmore High School and the special schools, would continue to operate as a collegiate, for example buying as one group.  If the new Academies changed their admissions criteria, however, this would have an impact.  Members also queried the impact on exclusions policy, and where excluded pupils would be admitted to.  It was advised that officers had had discussions with the Academies that would help to move pupils that were at risk of exclusion, but that a protocol for those pupils who were permanently excluded had yet to be finalised, and this was a concern as there would be only one mainstream community high school remaining.

Members were concerned about the adequacy of the consultation undertaken by the governing bodies considering transfer to Academy status, and sought further information on this.  It was stated that the Academies Act 2010 contained only minimal requirements for consultation.  The Portfolio Holder for Schools and Colleges felt that the requirements should have been more stringent, as Academies were funded from the public purse and ultimately affected the lives of young people.  However, the Council had been successful in working with the schools to broaden their consultation processes and, as a result, hundreds of responses had been received.  The number of parents who had responded varied, and attendance at public meetings had ranged from 20-30 to 200.  Members felt it would be helpful to know more about which methods of consultation were most effective so that this could be included in the Council’s information on the lessons learnt from the transfer process, and officers undertook to ask the schools to provide this.

An update on the position with regard to Service Level Agreements (SLAs) was requested and whether it was cost-effective for the Authority to continue providing all the services it currently provided was queried.  Members suggested that this might be an opportunity to stop providing some services, given the Council’s financial situation.  In response, it was advised that the Academies were working on the basis of the academic year, so some of those already signed up to SLAs until April next year were looking to extend them to September.  There were areas where SLAs had not previously existed, for example in relation to admissions and safeguarding, so these were still being developed.  £4.4m was currently invested in SLAs across the Council, however, and it would place budgets at risk if the Academies withdrew from them.  In addition, the Council had a responsibility to provide the services to other schools which had not transferred to Academy status, and if the Academies withdrew from services, unit costs for the remaining schools would increase.  Members sought assurance that the SLAs would include all of the Council’s fixed costs, and it was advised that all direct costs were currently being recovered, but there was a delicate balance to be struck between recovering the Council’s full costs and the Council pricing itself out of the market.  The position would vary for each SLA.  A Member was concerned whether the Council’s model was as robust as it should be, and requested that a further report on SLAs be submitted to a future meeting.

In response to other questions and concerns raised by Members, it was reported that:

·                    relationships between the converting high schools and the Council were in tact, although they had been tested, particularly in relation to a pensions issue where a Council decision, which had later been changed, would have meant that the new Academies were unsustainable.  This had been overcome, however, by involving the headteachers in the democratic process, and making them aware of the issues;

·                    the corporate nature of the work had required the bringing together of expertise from across the Council, and the Portfolio Holder for Schools and Colleges was grateful to other Portfolio Holders for this;

·                    with regard to any outstanding risks which might cause the transfer date of 1 August 2011 to slip, the only reason for this to happen would be if the Secretary of State did not enter into the agreement.  From the Council’s perspective, there would also be risks if the schools went ahead without resolving some of the technical legal issues prior to conversion;

·                    the land which was being transferred to the Academies on a 125-year lease was unlikely to ever be transferred back to the Authority, but in the event that it did it would have to be returned in the same state in which it was originally transferred;

·                    up until now the Authority had had an over-riding responsibility with regard to equalities, but from 1 August 2011 each governing body would become a free-standing public body to which the equality duty applied.  The Authority had not seen all the documentation submitted to the governing bodies, but so far as it was aware, they were taking equalities implications into account when making decisions;

·                    clarification as to responsibility for carbon reduction targets following academy conversion was still awaited from the Department for Education;

·                    there was no formal mechanism for sharing experiences and information with other London boroughs, but Members may wish to raise this through London Councils, particularly as there may be some cross-borough issues, for example relating to admissions.  Officers had spoken to their counterparts in other Boroughs, however, and also with the Department for Education, with whom they had offered to share any information.

It was noted that, in light of the change in the role of the Authority in relation to the Academies, there was a developing role for scrutiny in holding the Academies to account.  Members suggested that it would be useful to have a briefing for scrutiny members on their role going forward, following which they would need to start building relationships with the schools.  The Corporate Director of Children’s Services suggested that it might be helpful to seek advice on this from other Boroughs which had had academies for some time, such as Hackney.

Members also noted the report’s proposal that the Committee suggest to Cabinet that officers write to the Department for Education (DfE) setting out the difficulties inherent in handling a number of potential transfers concurrently.  Members endorsed this idea but expressed concern about the tone of the letter, and felt that it would need to be framed in such a way as to not be immediately dismissed by the DfE.  It was therefore agreed that the Council’s Scrutiny Officer draft the letter outside of the meeting, in consultation with the Vice?Chairman and the Scrutiny Policy Lead for Health and Social Care.  The letter should then be submitted  to Cabinet for approval and onwards forwarding to the Department for Education.

The Vice-Chairman in the Chair thanked the Portfolio Holders and officers for their attendance.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               a letter to the Department for Education, setting out the difficulties inherent in handling a number of potential transfers to Academy status concurrently, be drafted by the Scrutiny Officer, in consultation with the Vice Chairman and Scrutiny Policy Lead for Health and Social Care and submitted to Cabinet for approval; and

(2)               the report of the Corporate Director of Children’s Services and the Committee’s comments thereon be noted.