Brent gets £30.9m for additional school places

Brent Council is due to get the largest share of the £600m allocated in the autumn statement for provision of additional school places. London gets the bulk of the money because it faces the greatest pressure.

Brent gets £30.9m for 2012-13 which will be very welcome but it will need to be spent wisely.  I am now hearing quite a few reservations about recent school expansions and the resultant loss of play space and other amenities such as assembly halls and school libraries. There is also concern that 'super' primaries of 800 plus pupils while providing additional places, are not conducive to the family centred primary school ethos.

What would be best in my view is construction of new local authority community schools in the areas of greatest need but it is unclear whether the Council will feel able to do this in the face of government pressure for new schools to be academies of free schools.

LINK to allocations

CAMDEN SHOWS THE WAY?

Shortly after I posted this I read Camden councillor Mike Katz's letter in this week's  Brent and Kilburn Times. Headed 'New primary school needed to tackle places shortage' he says that bulge classes are a short-term fix and what is needed, in Camden's case. a new school: 'Labour will continue to back parents and ensure the council delivers on its aspiration of a new school for NW6'.

Let's see similar aspirations for Brent. What news is there of a possible new primary school in Fulton Road, Wembley? 

Highlighting some issues on the primary expansion strategy

An 'urban style' school in Westminster

I attended last night's Brent Executive meeting to hear the discussion on the Primary Places Strategy and was able to make a short presentation on some of the issues that arise.  These are the notes of my contribution:

1.   Recognise the difficulty regarding the shortage of school places and welcome development of a longer term strategy.

2.   Agree need for intensive lobbying of government with similarly affected boroughs – not just a local issue. This should include funding for new 2FE schools in areas of need.

3.   The consultation paper left out fact of submissions from at least two governing bodies – impression they were all headteacher or individuals. In fact a long and passionate discussion involving staff and parent governors took place.

4.   Proposals mean demise of one form entry schools that have their own strengths, particularly in terms of helping vulnerable children in an intimate and safe setting. (Return to that later)

5.    Draw attention to some issues that arise from the suggested strategy – the impact of all-through schools on neighbouring primaries – long-term residents will choose all-through school at 4 because it guarantees a place in the secondary school. May destabilise stand-alone primaries with disproportionate number of new arrivals and high turn-over.

6.   All through schools will reduce the number of secondary places available for pupils from stand-alone primaries. If Alperton and Wembley as proposed become all-through, this with Ark and Preston Manor would reduce Year 7 places available in North Brent by 300.

7.   This would impact on children from the South as they would lose out on the distance criterion. Raises equality issues.

8.   Need clarification of what is meant by ‘urban style’* school mentioned in 3.3 but not followed up.

9.   Need to have strategy on how to maintain ‘primary ethos and character’ in all through provision. Perhaps have a separate governing body to that for the secondary phase or additional governors experienced in early years/primary education.

10.  Possible alienation of small children in large 5 form entry schools (six proposed). Need to research also how to preserve the family-centred ethos through options such as ‘small schools’ within larger ones.

11. In the context of the recent disturbances need to think carefully about the form of our schools so as to reduce the possibility of alienation and disaffection of young people. If one of the ‘causes’ is lack of family support then schools need to be able to provide the safe, supportive structure sometimes missing from children’s own families. Is this better provided in smaller schools? Links with present consultation on  Breaking the Child Poverty Cycle. 

12. As Brent schools become larger ‘free schools’ may step in to provide the small, friendly, family-centred schools –‘where everyone knows your name and you can’t get away with anything’ that many parents prefer. There are signs that free school providers are already homing in on this.

* An officer  said that 'urban style' schools mean schools on 'constrained sites' such as some in Westminster. I take it that means schools with very little space in an urban environment.Soho Parish C of E School for example limits classes to 20 because of space constraints. Quite a few of the older buildings have roof playgrounds to maximise the small amount of play space they have.

In response Cllr Mary Arnold, lead member for Children and Families, said that the Council realised this was a serious issue and that was why they went out to consultation. She welcomed the feedback on the consultation and said that important points had been made, including those about 'small school' solutions within larger units and separate governing bodies for the primary phase of all-through schools. Cllr Lesley Jones echoed concerns about the impact of all-through schools on stand-alone primaries and said this issue had been worrying primary schools in her area. Cllr Ann John, following up comments about the riots and child poverty, said that Cllr Helga Gladbaum had chaired a group looking at an Early Intervention Strategy and that their proposals would be published soon.

Summer holiday decision on the future of primary education in Brent

Map showing unplaced primary children  in Brent 

Click on image to enlarge

Tonight the Brent Council Executive will consider a report setting out plans for future primary provision in the borough as a result of the burgeoning child population. The Council expect to be short of 46 reception class places in September after taking into account places at expanded schools and in bulge classes. However overall they expect as many as 513 Year 1 to Year 4 children to be without a school place in September.  Numbers are expected to rise 'dramatically' in 2012-13 with a record shortage of places of 1778 by 2014-15 if nothing is done.

The report proposes a three-pronged approach to the problem:

A robust lobbying campaign to central government, clearly demonstrating the size of the challenge the Council faces and the inadequacy of the available resources. At the time of writing the government has made no firm proposals or commitments to provide additional capital funding to support the provision of additional school  places. The problems are particularly acute within London, and the Council should actively consider collaborative lobbying with other likeminded Boroughs. On 19 July 2011, the Secretary of State announced that the government will provide an additional £500m to fund more new school places for September 2012 in those areas of greatest need. It is Brent Council's priority to make its case towards this allocation as part of our lobbying efforts.

A medium term approach linked directly to the Council’s emerging property strategy, which considers more radical ways of addressing the challenges associated by providing school places and delivering a ‘fit for purpose’ school portfolio. This will involve a review of the entire education portfolio and  consideration of new models for schools, including five form entry primary schools, all through schools and ‘urban’ style schools. The Council’s approach is in line with the government's latest announcement to conduct a full survey of the school estate for a fairer funding model. Such a strategy will take a number of years to come to fruition and will have little or no impact on the existing pressures. However, clearly the cycle of inadequate extensions and bulge classes needs to be broken at some point. The government has announced a new privately-financed school building programme to address the schools in the worst condition wherever they are in the country. The programme is expected to cover between 100 and 300 schools with the first of these open in September 2014 and is expected to be worth around £2 billion in up front construction costs.

A costed short term strategy to maximise the capacity of the existing school portfolio, involving a combination of extensions, expansions and bulge classes, in order to help meet immediate pressure for additional primary school places. This strategy is currently unfunded, and there is currently no government grant available for this. The report sets out the costs associated with the delivery of the short term strategy and suggests possible sources of finance in order to minimise the unsupported borrowing burden to the Council.

The report summarises the result of the consultation on future primary provision which was carried out in July and extended after protests that insufficient time had been made available for detailed consideration of the options.  They say 29 responses were received of which five were from headteachers, nineteen from individual school governors, and the remainder from 'others'. In fact I know that two responses were made from governing bodies but this isn't mentioned.14 (48%) were in favour of expanding existing primary schools as their first choice and 7 (24%) were in favour of creating bulge classes and 4 (13%) expressed a preference for all-through (4-19 years) schools.4 (13%) said that building new schools should have been considered an option and 6 (21%) suggested that the Gwyneth Rickus Building in Brentfield Road (currently the borough's Centre for Staff Development) become a primary school. (This may be an option if the CSD transfers to the new Civic Centre in 2012)


The strategy put forward in the document is not entirely in line with the consultation findings:

Diversity in the size of primary schools in Brent ranging from 2 FE to 5FE. In future, the minimum size of primary schools in Brent should be 2FE. (2 forms of entry is 420 pupils plus nursery and 5 forms of entry 1050 plus nursery))

Continue the move away from separate infant and junior schools and support the amalgamation of existing infant and junior schools.

Develop all through primary/secondary schools as an option within a diverse range of provision but maintain the primary ethos and character within all through provision.

Support the co-location of special schools and mainstream schools.

Within the overall system, maintain the flexibility to commission or decommission school places in response to fluctuations in demand

The move to all-through schools and the establishment of large 5 form entry schools are  both likely to be controversial. The short-list for possible expansion includes the conversion of Wembley High, Alperton and Capital City into 'all-through' schools with twoor three forms of entry in the  primary phase.The separate Roe Green Infant and Junior schools and Lyon Park Infant and Junior are ear-marked for expansion to five forms of entry, along with Barham and Braintcroft.  Byron Court and Preston Park are considered for expansion to 4FE. The 'short-list' is actually quite long with Wykeham, Fryent, Elsley, Chalkhill, Mitchell Brook, Leopold, Malorees Infants, Malorees Junior, St Andews and St Francis and Furness on the list for possible expansion to 3FE.

The report signals the end of one form entry primary schools which I personally find very sad as they can be quite magical places that are amazingly responsive to children and their families.

These are clearly important long-term decisions so it is a pity that the Executive is making them in the middle of the Summer holidays when many people concerned about such matters are away.

Primary Places Consultation Deadline Extended

Following protests Brent Council has extended the deadline for responses on the Primary Places Strategy to July 1st. The initial deadline of June 10th gave headteachers and governors just 9 school days to respond. The new deadline should enable more governing bodies to meet and debate the issue before responding.

We need time to give school places consultation proper consideration

Headteachers and governors in Brent have been sent a consultation document on the 'Development of a primary places strategy 2011/14'. I have long-pressed for a borough wide strategy rather than the ad-hoc approach of recent years and welcome the consultation. However I am disappointed that headteachers and governors have been given a deadline of June 10th, meaning that they have less than 10 days (taking into account that schools are closed for half-term next week) to consider a response to a complex issue. Some governing bodies have already had their summer term meeting and most will held after the deadline, giving no opportunity for a thorough discussion of the issues. I have appealed to the Director of Children and Families for the deadline to be changed to the end of the summer term.

Although parents are represented on governing bodies I think a wider consultation with parents about their children's future schooling would also give the consultation more credibility. They must be able to say if they want their children to go to primary schools with more than 1,000 pupils or to large 'all through' schools with children aged between 4 and 19.

The document asks if respondents agree with 5 planning principles:
1. Sufficiency of demand - evidence that there is a demand for additional places in particular areas in the medium and longer term.
2. Improvement of learning outcomes - schools identified for expansion must demonstrate they provide a good quality of education. The council will consider current progress and achievement and capacity to improve further.
3. Efficient use of resources - due to the limited capital budget the LA will want to secure the maximum number of additional high quality places within the available budget.
4. Improving local SEN provision - there is a projected shortfall in specialist SEN provision in both special schools and additionally resourced mainstream provision. In expanding primary provision improving the range and quality of SEN provision will also be considered.
5. Diversity of type of provision - The Council will consider different types of provision 'that will contribute to the overall objectives if providing high quality school places, cost effectively in areas of greatest need.

The paper dismisses the most obvious option of new build primary schools: "New build primary schools are currently not being considered as an option because the Council does not have sufficient funding nor the land to build upon. Similarly free schools have been excluded from this consultation because such proposals are outside the decision making of the authority."

Interestingly as you will see below they do see new build primary departments on secondary school land as an option for all-through (4-19) schools. So there is the money for that new build and the land, albeit on a secondary school site. Presumably such schools could be run as separate stand-alone primaries. I fear that in rejecting new build primary schools the Council will open the gates to free school providers.

These are the options the Council is putting to headteachers and governors:

1. Expansion of existing primary schools Advantages include building on current expertise and experience, may support improved learning outcomes particularism in smaller schools. Disadvantage is that there is limited scope for expansion in Brent's primary schools.
2. Establishing all through schools at existing secondary schools The Council see the advantages as increased opportunities for personalised learning through older primary pupils having access to the secondary curriculum, smoother transition between primary and secondary reducing the transfer 'dip', sharing of resources and expertise across phases. Disadvantages include primary schools may find it difficult to compete with larger all through schools in terms of resources and popularity, all through schools usually requite a newly built facility with a higher start-up cost. I would add  that stand-alone primary school pupils would be at a disadvantage at secondary transfer as fewer places would be available to them at secondary schools. All through schools would give priority to their own primary phase pupils. This would increase inequality particularly with regard to the imbalance of secondary school places between the north and south of the borough.
3. Establishing 5 form entry primary schools (this means 150 pupils in each year group). The advantages are claimed to be that this offers more places than conventional two or three form entry schools and that a larger budget would support wider curricular and specialist provision and a wider range of staff expertise. The disadvantage would be that parent  may be concerned about young children attending a large school and the potential impact on child-teacher relationships.
4. Amalgamating schools  This is not explained fully but seems to mainly refer to amalgamation of what are currently separate infant and junior schools. The advantages are seen as providing continuity of progression between Key Stage 1 (Infants) and Key stage 2 (Juniors) and improving the deployment of staff and resources. The disadvantages are that it will not automatically increase capacity and may be difficult and complex to achieve in some circumstances.
5. Bulge Classes This is where a school takes an additional class in a particular year group that then proceeds through the school. It does not increase the overall forms of entry of the school. Advantages are that it provides additional places quickly when there is insufficient provision and it allows for reduction of provision when demand falls. Disadvantages are that physical constraints may not allow for such classes and that parents may prefer a permanent school environment for their children. I would add that in providing space for a bulge class schools may lose facilities such as a school library or IT suite and that their may be overcrowding of halls, canteens and playgrounds. There may be suitable accommodation when children are five which would be unsuitable by the time they are 10 years old. Additionally such classes may suffer high levels of mobility as children leave to take up waiting list places in other schools and new arrivals replace them. Extra resources may be needed for children who have been out of school for some time and have fallen behind their peers. Elsewhere the LA has recognised that some schools may be reluctant to take such children as they fear they will lower their test results and place in the league tables.

Clearly the school places crisis needs to be addressed - every child is entitled to be educated and the local authority is legally obliged to provide sufficient places, but it is a complex issue as demonstrated above, and we need sufficient time to give the options proper consideration.