Outcome of a Neighbourhood Commission at Parkwood High School

 

1.           Purpose of the report

1.1                  The purpose of this report is to:

 

·             Report on the outcomes of a consultation with the Parkwood School community in the form of a Neighbourhood Commission concerning the possibility of pursuing Academy status at Parkwood High School with Edutrust as the sponsor;

·             Seek approval to submit an Expression of Interest as a first step in the development of a Parkwood Academy; and,

·             Proceed to the feasibility phase of the Parkwood project which would include undertaking further consultation with Parkwood and its local community on proposed Academy status as required during that phase;

2.           Background

2.1                  Cabinet received a report on 27 June 2007 detailing the responses that the Council had received to its consultation on the challenge set by the Government of seeking greater diversity of school provision.  The report set out how the Council would respond by maintaining a clear focus on learning and achievement, and by pursuing a neighbourhood approach in which secondary schools lead with local support.

2.2                  The report also set out how the Council would ensure that future sponsors and partners operate in accordance with the values of partnership that currently exists amongst the Sheffield family of schools.  Sheffield is unique amongst Local Authorities in setting out these operating principles in the form of a protocol that all new Academy or Trust Schools must adhere to.  The twelve elements of the protocol include commitments to:

·              local representation on the governing body;

·              priority for local pupils in the admissions process and no selection;

·              support for pupils with special needs or particular vulnerabilities; and,

·              community access to the school facilities.

2.3                  The methodology for a neighbourhood approach, outlined in the report was adapted from previous best practice in relation to decent homes.  Since then, a ‘Neighbourhood Commission’ process involving the establishment of a local ‘panel’ of parents and governors, and also a wider consultation with parents and children in the family of schools, has been fully developed.  A Members Advisory Group has also been established to keep abreast of the diversity agenda and to consider the outcomes of each Neighbourhood Commission.

2.4                  Parkwood High School was one of 5 inner-city schools in Sheffield that indicated during the initial consultation on diversity that they wished to explore Academy status further.  Since that time, Parkwood has met and developed a strong relationship with the British Edutrust Foundation (‘Edutrust’), a potential sponsor of the school as an Academy.  Following a series of introductory meetings with representatives of the school, it was considered time to take the next step and to ask the community through a Neighbourhood Commission whether it should explore Academy status further with Edutrust.  The purpose of this report is to report on the outcomes of that process.

 

2.5                  The first step in launching the process to establish an Academy is the submission of an Expression of Interest (EOI) to the Department for Children, Schools and Families.  The purpose of the EOI is to set out the details of a proposed Academy such as size, age range and specialism, and to outline the proposed vision for the new Academy.  If accepted, the next phase of the process would be a detailed planning stage (the ‘feasibility’ stage) which would include a major public consultation.  This report seeks delegated approval to submit an EOI.

3.           The Proposed Sponsor

 

3.1                  Academy Schools are supported by their sponsor organisations, which in turn provide educational leadership, expertise and investment to the school.  The choice of sponsor, and the value it can bring to a school and its community, is therefore a key decision in becoming an Academy.  Edutrust, was recommended to Sheffield by the Office of the School’s Commission as a potential sponsor for one or more of its schools.  Following the initial meetings with the Headteacher and Governors during the summer of 2007, there was clearly a strong potential for Edutrust to develop a common vision with the school and to take a relationship further. 

3.2                  Edutrust is a not-for-profit charitable organisation, set up by a number of people with an interest in developing educational excellence through sponsorship of a number of Academies in inner city areas of England.  The management team is made up of highly experienced professionals, each of whom have a great deal of educational experience through working closely in inner city schools, often in challenging circumstances.  Edutrust is funded by a number of donors who sit on a Council of Patrons.  They are separate from a Board of Trustees, who are the legal guardians of Edutrust, making sure that the Academies perform in the interests of the local community to a consistently high standard.  Edutrust’s proposed Academies are fully inclusive and reflect the multi-race, multi-faith and multi-cultural nature of the community they serve.  The focus of Edutrust is young people and the local community and how it can add value to the opportunities provided by the current school.  Edutrust has been represented throughout the Neighbourhood Commission process by its Education Director Dame Marlene Robottom.

3.3                  At this very early stage, the question that was asked in the consultation was “should Parkwood explore this relationship with Edutrust further?”.  The next stage of the process, the feasibility stage, would provide the opportunity for the school and its community to find out more about the Edutrust approach and what it could deliver in practical terms as the sponsor of an Academy.

 

4.           The Neighbourhood Commission Process

 

4.1                  The two elements of the Neighbourhood Commission process were:

 

·              A consultation with parents and young people; and,

·              A panel of parents and governors meeting to consider evidence from the key stakeholders and the outcomes of the consultation with parents and young people.

The consultation

4.2                  The consultation period ran from 3 December to 25 January.  A consultation document entitled ‘Partnership for Learning’ was circulated via pupils and by post to all parents and carers of pupils at Parkwood and its feeder primary schools.  The document is attached as Appendix 1.  The purpose of the document was to offer parents, young people and staff information about the nature of an Academy, about Edutrust and the perspective of the Headteacher and Governors about seeking Academy status with Edutrust.  The document also contained a questionnaire asking whether Parkwood should explore becoming an Academy with Edutrust.

4.3                  Two public meetings were held during the period, one on 10 January at Parkwood School and the other on 15 January at Burngreave Vestry Hall.  At both meetings the Council, Edutrust and the Headteacher of Parkwood School gave presentations.  The remainder of the meeting was taken up by a question and answer session.

4.4                  In addition, three informal ‘drop-in’ sessions were held with members of the Neighbourhood Commission Panel present.  These were on the afternoons of 10 December 2007 and 17 January 2008 at Parkwood School, and on the morning of 22 January 2008 at Shirecliffe Community Centre.

4.5                  The Authority also contracted with Chilypep (The Children and Young People’s Empowerment Project) to undertake consultation with children and young people within the area making up the Parkwood family of schools.  Chilypep undertook three weeks of consultation during the period 7 January – 25 January 2008.  During this period they provided an adult-led focus group session with the School Council at Parkwood and also at three of Parkwood’s feeder school. They also provided a peer-led focus group session in a youth group in Longley.

 

4.6                  Following their consultation, Chilypep provided the Neighbourhood Commission and the Members Advisory Group with a written report on the outcomes.

The Commission Panel

4.7                  The Commission Panel comprised 10 parents, or parent governors, of pupils in the family of schools, a member of the local Area Panel and was chaired by the Cabinet Member for Children and Young People’s Services (or one of his advisory team).  Apart from the Council Members, the group was formed by nominations from the family of schools themselves.  The Headteacher of Parkwood was instrumental in seeking the nominations of parents and parent governors from Parkwood.  The feeder school heads facilitated nominations from the feeder schools.

4.8                  The Commission Panel met for an initial briefing meeting on 19 November 2007.  Their first full meeting was on 4 December, at which a further series of meetings was planned, and at which the group heard from Edutrust’s representative Dame Marlene Robottom.  Four further meetings were held at which the group heard from and questioned key stakeholders in the process:

 

4.9                  On 1 February 2008, two of the Commission Panel members visited Heartlands High School in Birmingham.  Heartlands High is another potential Edutrust Academy but is at the feasibility stage of the process.  This was an opportunity for members of the panel to ‘compare notes’ with a school in a similar situation to Parkwood and to gain the perspective of another school about the value that Edutrust might bring as a sponsor.

4.10             The panel also extended an invitation to the Sheffield Anti-Academies Alliance to attend one of the drop-in sessions so that the Panel Members could hear their views.  This offer was not taken up.

4.11             The panel met on 4 February to have an informal discussion prior to their final meeting.  That final meeting was on 7 February at which the panel members reached their recommendation.

                          

5.           Outcomes of the Neighbourhood Commission

5.1                  The Neighbourhood Commission tested the possibility of exploring Academy status at Parkwood with a number of stakeholder groups – the parents of pupils at Parkwood and the feeder schools, young people at those schools and staff at Parkwood.  The outcomes of the consultation are described in relation to these groups. 

Headteacher and Governing Body

5.2                  As initiators of the consultation, the views of the Headteacher and Governing Body of Parkwood School were made clear in the consultation document and at the public meeting.  Their view is that Academy status with Edutrust as the sponsor could help the school achieve even better outcomes for Parkwood students.  It could provide:

·             a step-change in aspiration and improving attainment

·             additional capacity that would enable the school leadership team to do more and improve further;

·             opportunities for innovation and staff development; and,

·             access to additional resources.

Parents and Carers

5.3                  The consultation with parents and carers was facilitated through the public meetings, the informal ‘drop-in’ sessions and the questionnaire survey.

5.4                  Each of the public meetings was attended by approximately 60 people, of which 15-20 were parents.  The rest of the people who attended were staff, governors, community members and others.   In summary, the questions that were asked by parents at the meetings reflected a worry that the good progress at Parkwood might be lost and that an Academy might be a ‘takeover’.  There were questions about Edutrust’s motivation for being a sponsor.  What would their actual involvement in Parkwood be?  Would they want to dominate the governing body? How would parents be involved? 

5.5                  The response to the questionnaire survey was limited, with only 23 respondents out of 95 being parents.  Nevertheless, 65% of the parents surveyed which were connected to Parkwood either ‘Strongly Agreed’, or ‘Agreed’ with the prospect of exploring Academy status further and a further 22% said they  ‘Didn’t Mind’.    The issues that mattered most to respondents were  “greater opportunities for all pupils” (66% of respondents) followed by “raising pupil attainment” (58%) and “raising aspirations for learning” (54%).  The issues of least concern were “becoming independent from the Local Authority” cited by 4% and the “track record of Edutrust” (11%).  A report on the outcomes from the questionnaire survey is included as Appendix 2.

5.6                  It is important to note that the Neighbourhood Commission Panel, which comprised mainly parents, was an in-depth exercise in parental engagement.  It was a method by which a representative group of parents were facilitated to look in detail at the evidence presented to them about the prospects of Academy status with Edutrust and the views that were being expressed by other parents and young people.  This was an example of a methodology for involving parents in a strategic discussion about educational outcomes in their area.  This type of parental engagement in planning education provision is something that the Local Authority needs to develop in order to full-fill its role as a strategic commissioner.  The recommendation from the Neighbourhood Commission Panel is given at 6.2 below.

Young People

 

5.7                  The focus groups led by Chilypep took the consultation questionnaire as their basis.  The 11 original statements in the questionnaire were re-written and simplified.  Pupils in the focus groups were asked to prioritise the statements using a colour-coding system and further open-ended questions were used to tease out issues for discussion.  Children from primary schools were asked to decide what was most important to them about secondary school and the things they would most like the school to provide.

5.8                  Amongst the Primary children the key priorities were focused on school being enjoyable, teachers making school fun and interesting, and children wanting to come to school to learn.  These issues were considered to be much more important than community involvement, improvements to buildings and funding for resources.

5.9                  The main priorities for the Secondary pupils were divided between individual priorities such as their own aspirations and attainment, and additional funding and new buildings for the school.  Inclusion and community cohesion were strong themes, as was finding a partner with the right attitude skills and knowledge.  Whilst over half of those that took part agreed with exploring academy status, there were many questions and concerns.  The Parkwood School Council decided to explore these issues further in discussion with Edutrust and by contacting an Edutrust Academy. 

5.10             The Parkwood School Council also conducted their own survey of the students using the consultation questionnaire as the basis.  The results of this have been collated with the Chilypep report.  Of 165 responses, 60% of pupils agreed or strongly agreed with exploring academy status, 36% didn’t mind and only 4%  disagreed. 

5.11             The Summary and Key Findings of the Chilypep report is included as Appendix 3.

Parkwood staff

5.12             Members of staff at Parkwood had already had various opportunities to meet representatives of Edutrust prior to the start of the Neighbourhood Commission.  On 13 November, a half-day visit by Edutrust to the school had included a meeting with the Senior Leadership Team and a wider staff meeting. 

5.13             During the Neighbourhood Commission process there was an opportunity for staff to meet with the Commission Panel on 18 December.  This was a very well-attended event with around 25 staff present.  The purpose of the session was to allow staff to give their perspective and to voice any concerns.  On the whole, the views given by staff were positive, supportive and open-minded.  However, there were some understandable concerns about how Academy status would affect them individually and how their terms and conditions and pension rights would be affected.

5.14             In order to address these issues a staff briefing session was arranged for 10 January.  This session was attended by Dave Burkinshaw, a Senior Manager in Human Resources, and Dame Marlene Robottom from Edutrust.  Staff were given clear information about the employment implications for them and the terms of transfer under the TUPE arrangements.  There was also an opportunity to ask questions to Dame Marlene about Edutrust’s vision for the Academy.

5.15             Both of the above meetings were attended by the staff’s union representatives.

5.16             Of the 95 survey forms, 47 were filled in by Parkwood staff.  Of this sample, 83% were in favour of exploring academy status further with Edutrust.

Other Participants in the Consultation

5.17             Both public meetings were attended by a range of people that either individually or, as a representative of an organisation such as the Anti-Academies Alliance, expressed opposition to Academy status.  Most of this group have strong views about a perceived loss of democratic control or local accountability inherent in Academy status.  There are also concerns about what is described as ‘privatisation’ or the operation of a school outside the local authority system.  These issues are well-known national debates in respect of Academies and it was understandable that they should arise in a consultation to do with the future of Parkwood as an Academy.  However, the focus of this consultation is on the question “Should we explore academy status further?” and none of these views would actually preclude doing that.  It is also notable from the survey results that these concerns were not typical of the parents, young people and staff that make up the community of Parkwood and its family of schools.

6.           Summary and Recommendations

6.1                  It is apparent from the outcomes described above that the majority of parents and young people that took part in the neighbourhood commission process are in favour or at least open-minded about exploring academy status with Edutrust.  Clearly there are specific concerns that can only be addressed at a later stage of the project.  However, at this stage, the overriding issues for parents and young people are creating greater opportunities for pupils, improving learning and raising attainment, all of which would endorse the proposal to at least look at the prospect of academy status in more detail.

Recommendation of the Neighbourhood Commission Panel

6.2                  The Neighbourhood Commission Panel met on 7 February 2008 to consider the evidence that they had heard during the Commission and the recommendation that they would make to the Governing Body of Parkwood School.  Their unanimous recommendation was that that Parkwood should move to the next stage of the process and explore Academy status further.

6.3                  The reasons for this are:

·       The Panel believe that an Academy can benefit the local area by raising aspirations, improving learning and increasing employment opportunities;

·       The survey results from the key stakeholder groups (parents, young people and staff) show that these groups are supportive of moving to the next stage in an Academy process.  The group recognised that the sample of parental opinion was small but that the low response was likely to signify that parents were comfortable with or open-minded about the proposal.

 

·       During the Neighbourhood Commission the Panel had their concerns addressed by listening to submissions from the Parkwood Headteacher, Edutrust, the Headteachers of the Feeder schools, staff and union representatives, and through a visit to Heartlands High School in Birmingham, which is an Edutrust Academy in the feasibility phase of the Academy process. 

 

·        Moving to the feasibility phase is the only way to gain answers to the more detailed questions and concerns that remain outstanding, in particular the appointment of the head designate and the appointment of governors.

Recommendation of the Member Advisory Group

6.4                  The all-party Member Advisory Group received updates on the Parkwood Neighbourhood Commission at a regular monthly meeting during the process.  The group met to consider the outcomes from the consultation on 8 February 2008.  Their decision was to endorse that of the Neighbourhood Commission Panel by recommending to Cabinet that Parkwood should move to the next stage of the Academy process.

 

7.           The Buildings Project

7.1                  Prior to a consideration of Academy status, Parkwood was included in Sheffield’s plans for Wave 4 of BSF.  Within the constraints of the available funding for Wave 4, and given the previous amounts of capital investment made at the school, the proposed outcome for Parkwood was a refurbishment of the buildings.

7.2                  Once the proposal for Academy status had emerged, it became apparent that a refurbishment scheme would not underline the ‘step-change’ in aspiration for learning hoped for in the Academy process, nor would it allow for the development of a world class centre envisaged by the Edutrust.  As a result a proposal was submitted to the Secretary of State for a complete replacement of the buildings at Parkwood.  The Council has since received notification that the principle of rebuilding a new Parkwood School has been accepted by DCSF and that additional  capital funding will be made available.  Clearly this is an extremely welcome development for Parkwood, but it should be noted that the consultation process was undertaken without a guarantee of rebuild being made.  

8.           Submission of an Expression of Interest

 

8.1                  The submission of an Expression of Interest is the first step in an Academy process.  It takes the form of an outline proposal, naming the sponsor, their ethos and an outline vision for the Academy, as well as a number of specific details about the Academy and the current school to be replaced (such as number on roll and specialism).  The Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families must approve this Expression of Interest if the project is to proceed. 

8.2                  In order to submit an Expression of Interest, the DCSF appoints a consultant to work with the Council, the Sponsor and the School to collate the information required in the document and to work with the three parties to arrive at an agreed outline vision.  Should approval be granted to submit an Expression of Interest, the DCSF has identified a consultant for Sheffield and the preliminary details required in the document are being collated.

8.3                  The details required in the Expression of Interest include the proposed size of a future Academy.  Taking into consideration the considerable growth already reported to Cabinet in the number of pre-school and primary pupils the Shirecliffe, Burngreave and Fir Vale areas, the proposal in the Expression of Interest will be for 900 places at a proposed Parkwood Academy rather than the current 750.  The rationale for this increase will be further described during the Feasibility stage of the process and included in the statutory consultation.

                               

9.           Next Steps

9.1                  If approval were given to the Expression of Interest by the DCSF, work would start on the ‘Feasiblity’ stage of the Academy project for Parkwood.  During this phase the detailed plans for the organisation, management and operation of the Academy would be developed.  The sponsor would appoint a project manager, funded by the DCSF to develop the plans and to establish a Project Steering Group which would be chaired by the sponsor.  Although led by the sponsor, the three parties – the Council, the Sponsor and the school – are the main players through whom agreement on the detailed plans must be reached. 

9.2                  The Feasibility phase would also include the establishment of a Design Group, led by the Council, to oversee the development of the buildings through the BSF programme.

9.3                  A key element of the Feasibility phase would be a further detailed consultation associated with the ‘closure’ of the current school and its transfer to Academy status.  The Local Authority would carry out this consultation with a separate consultation undertaken concurrently by the DCSF’s appointed consultants on the proposals for Academy status.  Subject to work on the Feasibility phase having reached a satisfactory stage, it may be possible to undertake this consultation during the latter half of the Summer Term 2008.  The outcome of this consultation would be reported to Cabinet and the views expressed during the consultation would be considered before reaching any final decision on whether to publish statutory notices in the Autumn Term.

9.4                  Following the statutory notice period, Cabinet would take a final decision on whether to approve Academy status for Parkwood.  If approved, the next step would be the signing of a Funding Agreement for the Academy with the DCSF.  This could be undertaken prior to Christmas 2008 in time for the necessary implementation work to be undertaken for an opening in September 2009.

9.5                  A summary of the potential timetable is as follows:

10.      Financial Implications

 

10.1             Academy status involves the transfer of the funds from the Local Authority’s Dedicated Schools Grant to the DCSF to meet the cost of the formula driven budget of the school and those centrally managed services that support the school.  The DCSF has indicated this arrangement should be cost neutral to the schools in the city. The Academy will also receive funding directly from the sponsor and for other transitional costs but these will not be through the Local Authority. In addition the Academy building programme will be managed through Building Schools for the Future.

10.2             The change management costs of project delivery and the associated costs of legal, financial and human resources advice and support will be met from existing budgets of CYPD or from specific grant provided by the DCSF.

10.3             The full detail of these matters will be determined as part of the process and a further report will be provided to Cabinet later in the year.

11.      Legal Implications

11.1             Academies are publicly funded independent schools.  The power to create Academies is contained within Section 482 of the Education Act 1996.  Under this Section the Secretary of State may enter into an agreement with any person to establish and maintain an independent school.  Before entering into an agreement under Section 482 the Secretary of State must consult the Local Education Authority about the establishment of an Academy.

11.2             The Funding Agreement document will contain all the formal information necessary for the opening and funding of the new Academy and is a binding contract between the Secretary of State and the Academy Trust.  The funding to be provided by the Secretary of State will be subject to conditions and in particular a condition imposed with the purpose of securing that no charge is made in respect of admission to or attendance at the school.  The Funding Agreement can also make provision for the return of grants to the Secretary of State if the Funding Agreement is terminated.

11.3             The Academy must satisfy the curriculum requirements applicable to a maintained school but with an emphasis on a particular subject area or areas and which provides education for children of different abilities drawn from the area from a particular area.  The basic curriculum must be balanced and broadly based and ‘promote the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of the pupils at the school and of society and prepare pupils at the school for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of later life’.

11.4             The Secretary of State may approve a scheme, which provides for land in the ownership of the Local Authority to be transferred to the Academy.  The Secretary of State must consult the Local Authority before making such a scheme.  Rights and liabilities relating to the land transfer but not general assets, rights or liabilities.

11.5             Schedule 35a of the Education Act 1996 contains an important provision in respect of the disapplication of the rule against perpetuities in relation to options granted to a Local Education Authority, where land was transferred to an Academy for nil consideration.  Without the disapplication, the rule against perpetuities would not enable land to be returned to the Local Education Authority where the Academy closed or ceased to use the land.  The disapplication of the rule against perpetuities enables the land to be transferred back to the Local Authority where the Academy closed or ceased to use the land.  The Secretary of State also has power to transfer property back to the Local authority where an Academy ceases to exist.

11.6             Specific issues relating to the transfer of land, general assets and liabilities, admission arrangements, special educational needs and the school organisation process will be detailed in further reports.

 

12.      Human resources Implications

12.1             The establishment of an Academy has implications for all staff working at Parkwood.  If the proposal were accepted the Sponsor would become the employer and existing staff and their contracts of employment would transfer from the City Council to the Governing Body of the new school under the TUPE regulations.  Details of how the TUPE regulations would impact on staff have already formed part of an initial briefing for staff and would form part of a statutory consultation at the feasibility stage.

12.2             Staff at Parkwood would need support from Human Resources.  CYPD’s HR Service will manage the consultation processes related to employment matters and will provide staff with relevant advice and support related to the reorganisation proposal.  This may include individual one to one support or group support.  Human resources will also manage any redeployment or redundancy process that is needed if staff do not TUPE transfer to a new school.  If TUPE is applicable the CYPD HR Service would manage the due diligence exercise with the new employer to ensure a smooth transfer of employee data and records.

12.3             If the Academy proposal were adopted, the Authority would work hard to include relevant staff Trades Unions or associations in the implementation processes.  It is anticipated that a formal implementation group would be established to move the proposals forward and that a representative of the Trades Unions will be invited to join such a group.

 

13.      Equal opportunities implications

 

13.1             A full equalities impact assessment  would be undertaken during the feasibility phase of the Parkwood project once the detail of the plan for an Academy were developed.

14.      Recommendations

14.1             Cabinet is recommended to:

i)    Note the outcomes of the Neighbourhood Commission concerning the possibility of pursuing Academy status at Parkwood High School with Edutrust as the sponsor;

ii)            Authorise the Executive Director Children and Young People’s Service to sign and submit an Expression of Interest for an Academy at Parkwood;

iii)  Grant approval to proceed to the Feasibility phase of the project, and, to undertake further consultation with Parkwood and its local community on proposed Academy status as required during that phase;

iv)            Receive a report on the outcomes of further consultation;

Paul Makin

Acting Executive Director Children & Young People’s Service

February  2008