Monday's Cabinet to rubber stamp amalgamation of Malorees schools despite opposition at the Statutory Consultation stage

 

The Malorees Orchard - the freehold was donated to the junior school by Network Housing

A week into the school summer holiday the Brent Cabinet will decide to go ahead with the amalgamation of Malorees Infant and Junior Schools at Mondays Cabinet despite opposition from the majority of respondents to the statutory consultation and the NEU group at the schools.

The Cabinet report outlines consultation responses:

There were 89 individual responses to the formal consultation, compared to 115 during the informal consultation. Three respondents sent two separate responses and for the purposes of this analysis their comments have been grouped together and will be considered as a single response from each.

 

In addition, a bulk submission was received in the post of a duplicate letter that had been signed by 46 respondents, 5 of whom also submitted an individual response.

 

Of the individual responses, 18 (20.2%) indicated support for the proposal which was more than in the informal consultation and one from staff included12 signatories. 61 individual responses (68.5%) indicated an objection to the proposal and 10 (11.3%) commented on the proposal without indicating either support or objection.

 

• Of the individual respondents indicating an objection to the proposal:
• 43 expressed concern over the financial impact resulting from the amalgamation.
• 38 suggested that the consultation was either flawed or lacked clarity or transparency.
• 33 expressed concern over the uncertainty of the rebuild project.
• 32 suggested that an amalgamation had no benefit or was not in the school or children’s best interests.
• 24 expressed concern over the transfer of Malorees Junior School land to the council.
• 8 suggested that the assumptions presented in the statutory proposal were either wrong or optimistic.
• One suggested that the amalgamation would result in redundancies.
• Five respondents indicated an objection without including additional comments.
• In a letter to the Governing Board, 30 of the 67 staff at the school stated their objection to the proposal due to the loss of circa £180K of funding from the school budget because of the amalgamation, despite support for the whole school building project. This view was shared with the Local Authority outside of the consultation time frame by the school’s NEU representative.

The Authority admits to a mistake at the informal consultation stage (my emphasis): 

The Q&A section of the informal consultation document stated in error that if the majority of respondents did not support the proposal, then it would not proceed. The document should have made it clear that the merits of any concerns or arguments would also be taken into account. This was raised as a concern at the Cabinet meeting on 7 April, when the decision was taken to proceed to statutory consultation.

They argue that they went above and beyond what was legally required at the formal stage:

The formal consultation has been carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 and by following the statutory process set out in Department for Education guidance Making Significant Changes to Maintained Schools and Opening and Closing Maintained Schools. During the formal consultation process, the Local Authority and the Governing Board did more than is required under the statutory process to listen to views and provide reassurance to stakeholders to address concerns that information had not been shared openly and transparently during the informal consultation. This includes a meeting with parent representatives and providing parents with a detailed Q&A document on 19 May 2025.

They admit that there may be refurbishment, rather than a completely new building for the amalgamated school;

Uncertainty over the capital investment proposals: The Governing Board and Brent Council acknowledge the responses that raise concerns about the certainty of the capital investment proposals, including whether the schools will be rebuilt or significantly refurbished. Whilst a new school building will always be a preference, and one that will be advocated by the Governing Board and the Local Authority, a significant refurbishment will also provide a vast improvement to the current buildings and the learning and working environment.

They rely on undertakings from the DfE although despite current very tight budgets and escalating building costs:

The Governing Board and the Local Authority have a written commitment from the DfE to the delivery of a single capital investment solution for both Malorees Infant and Junior schools as part of the School Rebuilding Programme if the schools are amalgamated as one school by April 2026. While the full details of the project are not yet known, the DfE is already progressing a one-school solution which has involved to date undertaking significant survey work of both school buildings and sites. The DfE has provided an indicative project timeline that anticipates the project scope to be determined in the autumn term, for planning permission to be submitted by June 2026, for construction works to start in September 2026 and project completion to take place by December 2027. The DfE is being proactive in ensuring the capital build project moves forwards swiftly with the full involvement of school leaders and governors in the decision-making process. As more information on the project becomes available this will be shared with children, parents and staff on a regular basis.

There has been confusion over the financial loss to the schools of amalgamation, tha basis of the NEU's fears,  and the details are set out:

Financial Impact: Upon amalgamation the combined school will only be eligible for one lump sum (an allocation from the Dedicated Schools Grant provided to individual schools to support fixed costs that is currently £170,000 a year) and one sports premium allocation (£16,600 a year). The lump sum reduction will be tapered over 3 years starting at the earliest in the 2026/27 financial year. From the financial year after amalgamation, as one school there would be a reduction of 30% of the lump sum currently allocated to the Junior School plus the whole of the sports premium lump sum, equating to circa £67,000 based on the current funding allocation. In the following year, the school would lose 60% of the one lump sum (£102,000) and by 2028/9 the whole of one lump sum.

Again the Council is confident that this can be handled:

Alongside potential savings from reduced administrative and subscription costs, a significant reduction in maintenance costs is expected following capital investment in the school’s buildings through a single capital investment solution within the DfE’s School Rebuilding Programme. The school currently incurs a minimum of £50,000 general maintenance costs a year linked to the poor condition of the buildings that will not be required going forward, with the current financial outturn confirming over £100,000 of spend. These costs would continue to increase given the condition of current school buildings. Capital investment will also make the school’s accommodation more energy efficient, saving expenditure on energy costs (estimated as up to £5000 a year).

 The Cabinet paper argues that an amalgamated school will be more popular with parents and that pupil numbers would increase when Islamia (if?) moves out of the area to the Leopold site (consultation in progress).

The Council states that they have no plans for the additional land, including the orchard that they would take over and promise it would remain educational land, needing permission of the DfE to dispose of for any other purpose. 

Cllr Gwen Grahl, lead member for schools, summarises the local authority's perspective:

Where infant and junior schools choose to amalgamate, this is supported by the Local Authority for the many benefits for children, staff and the school,including consistent leadership and teaching practices, a single overarching identity for the school and the wider community and strengthened sustainability through economies of scale.

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.