Agenda item

Prior to this item being presented and discussed, the Chairman welcomed to the meeting Dr. Ian Ridley from the “Save our Schools, Oadby” group, who had requested the opportunity to speak on the age range changes which were out for consultation currently in Oadby and were referred to in Appendix A to the report. The Chairman stated that it had been agreed to accommodate Dr. Ridley’s request on the basis that a consultation process was currently underway and any subsequent debate of the views expressed could compromise the Council’s position prior to submitting a formal response. For this reason, it was confirmed that, arising from Dr. Ridley’s statement, his comments would be noted and the full report would then be debated by the Committee.

Having tabled a short note (a copy is filed with these minutes), Dr. Ridley outlined the following key points:

·         The group had circulated over 11,000 leaflets in Oadby and the neighbouring villages and collected a petition with over 1,300 signatures which would be submitted to the governors. Dr. Ridley was happy to make this information available to the Committee, should it wish to see it;

·         The group was not opposed to age range changes, but rather wanted to retain the present school system in Oadby, which was regarded as “outstanding” by Ofsted. There was a danger that under the new proposals with the number of 16-18 places being reduced places would be filled at schools outside of Oadby and travel to and from the town would therefore be increased.

In response to the comments made, the Director stated that any consultation about age range changes at an academy should take place without any comments made from the Local Authority – the consultation was with parents and the local community. The academy would then present for a consideration a Business Case to the Regional Schools Commissioner and the Education Funding Agency. In a maintained school, the governing body would similarly consult with the parents and local community, and would then be required to submit a business case to the Council who would then consider this based on a number of set criteria, such as: whether it would improve outcomes for children, the number of families who had responded to the consultation as a percentage of the local population, the views of local members and communities and the likely impact on pupil numbers. It was noted that the improvement of outcomes for children was the most significant of these criteria.

The Committee then considered the report of the Director of Children and Family Services concerning the current arrangements for ensuring that schools are performing well and are appropriately monitored, supported and challenged and an update on the current landscape with regard to academies and age range changes. A copy of the report, marked “Agenda Item 9”, is filed with these minutes.

Arising from a discussion, the following points were noted:

·         The Local Authority had a critical role in ensuring strong relationships between schools to enable them to offer each other effective support at times of need;

·         It was set out in legislation that the Local Authority had a role to make “arrangements” for school improvement but was not required to “deliver” the improvements in isolation. The Council maintained a constructive dialogue with academies to ensure they were performing. It was felt that the LEEP had been an asset in this regard;

·         Performance data for schools was made available by Ofsted. It was not currently felt that there was anything to gain by the Council publishing this information on its own website, though the suggestion for signposting to the information provided by Ofsted was being considered;

·         The Council was able to issue a warning to the governors of those schools that were not regarding as performing adequately. This had only been required on one occasion thus far;

·         Though it appeared from the report that results at Key Stage 4 had dropped, it was confirmed that the assessment process had changed and that this was not presently taken account of in the results given;

·         It was noted that the asterisks marked against some schools in the list provided on pages 33 and 34 denoted those academies that would be merging;

·         18% of governor posts were currently vacant across the County, though it was felt that this was not a true reflection as many schools were in the process of reconstituting to a smaller size. The Governor Development Service was active in supporting a recruitment process to fill any vacancies.

RESOLVED:

That the report be noted.