Agenda item

(Report of the Director of Children’s Services. To be introduced by the Cabinet Member for Children). The report seeks agreement to close the John Loughborough School with effect from 31 August 2013.

Due to the number and size of the appendices in relation to this item they have only been circulated to Cabinet Members in hard copy. They have been published on the Council’s website and are available on request.

Prior to Cabinet considering the report, Mr Samuel, Chair of the John Loughborough School Board of Governors, spoke in opposition to the school’s closure.

Mr Samuel began by questioning whether the process followed by the Council in closing the school had been fair and whether the Council could have been more supportive and allowed more time for an Academy sponsor to be found. He contended that the lack of time available had limited that school’s ability to identify a suitable Academy sponsor and suggested that more time should be given to allow that process to take place. It was noted that the school had sought legal advice on this point and had written to the Department of Education on this matter. 

Mr Samuel contended that the Council had demonstrated predetermination in its moves to put arrangements in place for pupils to be moved to alternative schools before the final decision with respect to the school’s closure was made. He also contended that comments had been made by the Leader of the Council, at a consultation event, which demonstrated predetermination.

Mr Samuel noted that the school aimed to equip pupils with skills that would give them confidence and enable them to contribute to their community. He noted that this was one of the school’s strengths and parents and pupils valued this highly.   Whilst he recognised the Council’s concerns with regard to the school’s performance he argued that the school had taken significant steps to improve performance over recent years.

At the conclusion of Mr Samuel’s deputation the Leader disputed an assertion made by Mr Samuel that she had made comments at a consultation event indicating that the decision to close the school was a foregone conclusion.  Cabinet Members were then invited to put questions to Mr Samuel and other members of the deputation.

In response to a series of points made with regard to the school’s poor performance and lack of improvement in comparison with other schools in the borough, the school’s head teacher acknowledged that poor levels of performance were not acceptable and agreed that it was important that all children in the borough received a good education. However, she contended that the school had been through a significant period of turbulence, due to a number of changes to its leadership over recent years, which the Council had not taken into account. She emphasised the value the school placed on supporting its pupils emotional well being and personal development and contended that this should also be taken into account.

In conclusion the head teacher argued that the decision with respect to the school’s closure should be delayed until the examination results for 2013 and 2014 were known as this would allow measures that had been put in place over this last year to become effective.

Cabinet was in agreement that ensuring that young people reached their full potential academically and that they possessed the qualifications and skills they needed in order to find employment was vital. The Council had to be confident that all schools in the borough provided a good level of education that enabled them to do this. 

In response to assertions that the Council had been unsupportive in the school’s application for Academy status; the Leader clarified that Local Authorities played no role in the determination of applications for Academy status.

The Cabinet Member for Children thanked Mr Samuel and other members of the deputation for attending the meeting and for making their deputation and she responded to the points made by the deputation. She began by noting that she was satisfied that the process had been carried out fairly and in accordance with the relevant legislation. In terms of Mr Samuel’s contention that the Council could have been more supportive in the school’s attempt to find an Academy sponsor, she echoed the earlier point that Local Authorities did not have a role to play in either supporting schools to become Academies, or in determining whether they should become Academies.  

With regard to assertions that the outcome on the closure of the school had been predetermined, because contingency plans were being put in place by the Council for pupils that might be effected by the potential closure of the school; the Cabinet Member for Children rejected this argument and noted that it had been important that contingency plans were put in place given that there was a possibility that the school may be closed.

In terms of suggestions that the school should be given more time to improve academic attainment, the Cabinet Member for Children noted the initial Notice to Improve had been issued six years ago. Although she appreciated that the school had been through a period of turbulence the key consideration for the Council had to be the education of the children that attended the school and whether this was of the required standard.

In response to a question on support the Cabinet Member for Children reiterated that she was satisfied that the Council had supported the school throughout the process.  It was also noted that the school had been supported by the London Challenge Scheme, which helped poor performing schools to drive up their performance. It was reiterated that Local Authorities played no role in determining applications for Academy status.

In response to comparisons drawn with St Thomas Moore school Cabinet was advised that St Thomas Moore school had been able to demonstrate improvement and progress to Ofsted. In contrast the John Loughborough School had not been able to demonstrate improvement and this was why closure was being considered.

The Leader drew discussion to a conclusion by noting that the central themes of concern that had been expressed strongly at the consultation event and which had been reiterated now were; the importance of the provision of a faith based education; a safe and nurturing environment to learn in and; developing strong personal skills and confidence amongst pupils. She noted that the concerns of Year 10 pupils regarding the impact of the closure of the school upon them in their GCSE year had been taken on board and as a result officers had been asked to begin contingency planning at an early stage to ensure any transition was as smooth as possible and that it reflected the wishes of the pupils and parents as far as possible.

The Leader noted that the initial Notice to Improve had been issued in February 2007 and since that time the school had failed to improve attainment and achieve targets set by Ofsted. Given this Cabinet had to consider the Council’s commitment to ensure that every child had access to a good education and whether the school could provide this. In conclusion the Leader thanked Mr Samuel and other members of the deputation for attending the meeting and for making their deputation.

RESOLVED:

1. That the proposal to close The John Loughborough School, across all year groups with effect from 31 August 2013, be approved.

2. That pupils currently on roll at The John Loughborough School (with the exception of the current Year 11), be transferred to other schools with effect from September 2013, in accordance with the admissions process set out in the published notice.

3. That school places were made available in other good or outstanding education for pupils currently on roll at the John Loughborough School.

4. That staff currently employed at the school were dealt with under the provisions of the Haringey Schools Redundancy Redeployment Policies/Procedures, which the school adheres to.

Alternative Options Considered

Under the Department for Education (DfE) guidance a proposal could be approved, rejected, approved with modification or approved subject to meeting specific conditions.

Reasons for Decision

Four Ofsted inspections since 2007 have shown no sustained improvement in the standards expected at the school.  The most recent full inspection was in December 2011 which, for a second time, placed the school in ‘special measures’.  A monitoring inspection in February 2013 determined progress since the school was subject to special measures to be ‘inadequate’. 

A number of support measures had been put into place over the last ten years to try to turn the school around and to raise standards but, despite these, the school had not been able to show sustained improvement over any significant period of time.  The support put into place is outlined in this report but the continuation of this support was not educationally or financially viable in the long term. 

A review of the school by the Local Authority working in partnership with the SEC was undertaken and the review also had the input of an independent education consultant and it was concluded that there were only two viable options for the future of the school:

Ø  closure  or

Ø  conversion to academy status with the support of an external sponsor

In September 2012 the Council’s Cabinet agreed that these were the only two viable options for the future of the school and agreed that consultation should commence on the possible closure of the school.  In parallel with this consultation the SEC would continue to seek to secure an appropriate sponsor to allow the school to convert to an academy. 

In December 2012, following consideration of the feedback received from the consultation that took place with stakeholders, along with all other material considerations, the Lead Member for Children’s Services agreed that a statutory notice should be published setting out the Council’s proposal to close the school with effect from the end of the summer term 2013.

The feedback from the representation period of six weeks that followed the publication of the statutory notice showed that many stakeholders did not want the school to close and had set out that more time should be given to allow the school to respond to the challenge to improve the standard of education being delivered at the school and the resultant impact on the outcomes for its pupils.   However, the evidence base set out in this report, including successive Ofsted inspections, GCSE results for The John Loughborough School pupils compared with local and national averages, and the sustained and targeted level of support provided to the school to support improved outcomes, illustrates robustly that the school has  failed over a long period of time to secure the required outcomes for its pupils and that a delay now  in the implementation of the closure of the school runs the risk of consigning further cohorts of pupils to a standard of education that falls well below that which is expected locally and nationally and the resultant impact for life chances on those pupils as they move into adult life and the wider world.  Even a delay of one or two years risks impact on outcomes for between 60 and 120 young people to realise their potential and for all of them to be given the opportunity to achieve to their highest potential.