Guest post: A parent writes on why the proposed Malorees Schools amalgamation raises serious concerns

  

 

Guest post by Aidan Reilly, parent

Why the Proposed Amalgamation of Malorees Schools Raises Serious Concerns

 

The proposal to amalgamate Malorees Infant and Junior Schools may appear administratively convenient on paper, but beneath the surface lies a troubling situation filled with unanswered questions, broken assurances, and widespread community concern. Far from being a clear-cut improvement, this amalgamation risks: destabilising a successful federation, undermining community trust, and delivering uncertain educational and financial outcomes.

 

A Timeline of Cautionary Lessons

 

In 2014, Brent Council’s Cabinet approved, in principle, the amalgamation of several school pairs, including Malorees, as part of its School Place Planning Strategy. While some, like Lyon Park, proceeded with amalgamation in 2016, Malorees did not.

 

What followed at Lyon Park stands as a cautionary example. After amalgamating its infant and junior schools, the newly formed Lyon Park Primary was rated “Requires Improvement” by Ofsted in 2019. The report highlighted a turbulent post-amalgamation period marked by significant leadership and staff turnover, which resulted in declining educational standards, particularly in reading and writing. Financial troubles followed, including a licensed deficit agreement with the council. In 2020, Brent Council federated the school with Wembley Primary School to address the dire finances, and by 2023, staff were striking over pay restructuring and potential redundancies​​.

 

A Federation That Works

 

Malorees Infant and Junior Schools have operated under a single leadership and governing board since 2017. Staff move seamlessly between buildings; parents and pupils experience the schools as one. By all practical measures, the federation functions as an integrated, effective primary education provider. Parents and carers often and consistently praise the efforts of dedicated staff who we rely on to care, nurture, and educate our children.

 

As one teacher voiced at the April 2025 Brent Cabinet meeting: “Malorees already is one school in everything but name… amalgamation will add almost nothing to that.”​  This raises a fundamental question: If it’s not broken, why fix it?

 

Broken Promises, Ignored Feedback

 

Perhaps most damaging to trust is how the council handled its consultation process. The original consultation documents clearly stated that if there was no agreement among consultees, the schools would remain separate. Yet, despite overwhelming opposition from teachers, support staff, governors, and parents, the council recommended formal consultation, and the Cabinet voted to proceed.

 

Figure 1- Extract from Informal Amalgamation Proposal (Jan, 2025)

 

Consultation data showed that 81.7% of respondents opposed the proposal, and a mere 8.7% supported it. A petition with 260 signatures was submitted, but this was omitted from the summary report. The National Education Union, representing staff at Malorees, submitted an open letter condemning the proposal, referencing both educational harm and fiscal recklessness​​. 

 

 

Figure 2 - results of amalgamation consultation

 

The community submitted representations to Councillors to ‘call-in’ the decision to progress to formal consultation, as it was in contrast to the stated criteria within the proposal. However, these representations were either ignored or not given proper consideration, and the controversial decision remains lacking proper scrutiny.

 

The Funding Gamble

 

The key incentive behind the amalgamation is capital investment. The Department for Education (DfE) has agreed to rebuild the Junior School and suggested that this could extend to the previously refused Infant School, but only if the schools amalgamate.

 

This proposed incentive has serious strings attached. There is no detailed design, concept, or budget for a unified rebuild. Meanwhile, the already-approved Junior School project remains on hold pending the outcome of the consultation, and enhancements such as an awarded grant for a Multi-Use Games Area (MUGA) ​​have been effectively abandoned. Enthusiasm for the rebuild is cautious at best, especially given that by late 2024, only 23 out of 500 schools in the national building programme had been completed.

 

Financially, the amalgamation comes with a confirmed loss of at least £186,000 per year in “lump sum” grants and additional funding. Additional yearly cuts of around £35,000 were revealed at the April Cabinet meeting, taking the deficit to above £220,000 per year, although there will be an initial phased reduction. With most of the school’s budget allocated to staffing, such a cut virtually guarantees reduced support for children and an increased workload for staff​​. As staffing accounts for the majority of the school’s budget, such a financial hit almost certainly means reduced support for pupils and increased pressure on staff. While some savings have been suggested through lower maintenance costs, the infant school’s average annual maintenance and improvement spend is around £30,000, rising to £42,300 in 2022–2023. These figures fall significantly short of what’s needed to offset the financial burden of amalgamation.

 

 

Figure 3 – Malorees Infant School, published Schools Financial Benchmark (.gov)

 

Staffing, Stability, and the Risk of Academisation

 

Although assurances have been given that there will be no redundancies or restructuring, the experience of other amalgamated schools tells a different story. With school budgets already under pressure and staffing accounting for the majority of expenditure, any significant funding reduction, such as the projected £186,000+ annual loss post-amalgamation, inevitably increases the risk of job losses through attrition, unfilled vacancies, or reorganisation.

 

It’s also important to note that certain cost-cutting measures, such as not renewing agency or temporary contracts, are not legally classified as redundancies. While technically accurate, this distinction does little to reassure staff or parents, particularly when those roles provide crucial support for pupils, including those with special educational needs and other vulnerabilities.

 

Even more troubling is the potential for forced academisation. If amalgamation leads to a drop in Ofsted ratings, just as it did at Lyon Park, current government policy allows for intervention, potentially transferring the school to a multi-academy trust. While Cabinet members have offered verbal assurances that this is not the intention, the fate of Byron Court Primary School (now Harris Primary Academy South Kenton) reveals the stark reality: once standards are deemed to have slipped, local councils, school communities, and even elected representatives have little power to prevent conversion.

 

There is a further uncomfortable parallel between Malorees and Byron Court, namely, a troubling lack of parental representation during a critical period. When the amalgamation proposal was published for Malorees, the governing board had no active parent governors. A long-standing vacancy had gone unfilled, and another parent governor stepped down before the launch of the consultation. This mirrored the situation at Byron Court, where a similar absence of parent governor voices coincided with decisions that ultimately led to academisation. In both cases, the absence of formal parent oversight has intensified concerns around transparency, legitimacy, and the erosion of community voice in shaping school governance.

 

Questionable Gains, Clear Risks

 

The proposed advantages of amalgamation, such as smoother transitions between Key Stages, a unified school identity, and more efficient resource use, are in practice already being effectively delivered through the current federation. Malorees Infant and Junior Schools operate with shared leadership, coordinated teaching approaches, and effective well-being strategies.

 

Claims of increased pupil numbers due to upgraded facilities remain speculative. Brent’s own School Place Planning Strategy references borough-wide declines in primary enrolment, driven by falling birth rates. Forecasts of future growth hinge on housing developments that may or may not materialise at the pace or scale needed to affect school rolls in the near term.

 

At the April Cabinet meeting, mention was made of the relocation of Islamia Primary School. While there is no formal indication that Brent intends to rehouse this faith school on the Malorees site post-amalgamation, the implication seemed to be that the influx of displaced pupils may help fill places and boost per-pupil funding. But this potential redistribution of pupils is unrelated to the amalgamation itself and could occur independently. If anything, it suggests that pupil demand may be met without structural change, undermining the case for amalgamation as a remedy to under-enrolment. The future of Islamia Primary is expected to be addressed at the May Cabinet meeting.

 

Conclusion: The Community Deserves Better

 

Malorees Federation is not a system in need of repair. It is a rare success story in education: two schools working in true partnership, delivering high-quality outcomes for children and families.

 

The overwhelming rejection of the amalgamation by the school community is not resistance to change, it is a rational, evidence-based defence of something that works. The council must listen.

 

Unless and until there are clear educational benefits, detailed funding plans, and a genuinely transparent process, this amalgamation remains a risk-heavy gamble with no guaranteed reward.

 

Brent Council must put children, not bureaucracy, at the heart of its decision-making. The community deserves much better than this.