Leopold Primary School, Brentfield Road site, earmarked for eventual closure. A potential site for Islamia Primary?

 

Leopold Primary School, Brentfield Road

Falling school  pupil numbers and subsequent school closures and amalgamations were a feature of my early years in teaching in the 1970s and the issue has returned post-Brexit as pupil numbers fall. 

Camden has already been hit and  there was a local warning when the Strathcona site closed. Now Brent Council is wrestling with managing pupil numbers and school provision. in the borough.  A review of primary provision was promised last year and focused on Planning Area 4:

The above table shows how the actual admissions compared with the PAN (Planned Admissions Number).  30 is one form admitted at reception, 60 two forms and 90 three forms, 45 is a class and a half and results in either two small single age classes or mixed age classes.

The only two oversubscribed schools were Donnington (single form entry - one class per year) and St Joseph's a Roman Catholic school.  There are parents who prefer a small school such as Donnington where vulnerable children feel less threatened than they would in a school with  large numbers of pupils and a big site.  Our Lady of Lourdes is also one form entry.

Single form entry schools are becoming much less common in London but this may change in time. Brentfield, Furness, John Keble, Newfield, St Mary's C of E and Stonebridge are all around or well below one form of entry. They tend to have higher per pupil costs than larger schools.

The two sites of Leopold Primary have a combined form of entry of 4 classes.

 

Brent Council explains the background to their proposal to close the Brentfield Road site of Leopold Primary in phases from September 2025. The site was previously the Brent Teachers Centre andPupil Referral Unit.

Leopold Primary School currently has capacity for 120 places in each year group with 60 on the school’s main site on Hawkshead Road and 60 on the Gwenneth Rickus site (Brentfield Road). Leopold Primary School achieves good outcomes for pupils across both sites and was rated by Ofsted as ‘Good’ in June 2022.

 

Leopold operates as a split-site school with one leadership team and staff who work across both the main school site on Hawkshead Road and the Gwenneth Rickus site.

 

On national offer day in 2023 for Reception places in 2023, 60 places were offered and there remained 60 spare places across the two school sites. As with other schools across the borough, the actual Reception cohort now on roll is higher due to late applications, which would have been diverted to other schools had Leopold’s capacity only been 60. Demand for Leopold Primary School has been falling since 2018 and the Gwenneth Rickus site operates as one form of entry in some year groups, including Reception and Year 1.

 

The Leopold Gwenneth Rickus site was opened in September 2013 as annexed provision in response to increasing demand for primary school places. The site was previously used by the borough as a school improvement centre, running courses for education professionals. Now that demand has reduced, there is no longer a need for this additional site to be retained as there are sufficient spare places on both the Leopold Primary School main site and in other local schools to accommodate future demand for primary provision in the area.

 

In January 2023, there were 628 pupils at Leopold Primary School compared to 767 in January 2019, with 282 pupils educated on the Gwenneth Rickus site.

 

The proposal is for the status of Leopold Primary School to return to that of prior to 2015 when the school operated with two forms of entry from one site only (Hawkshead Road). A phased closure of the Gwenneth Rickus site is recommended to avoid disruption to as many pupils and their families as possible. As the Hawkshead Road site has a central location within the planning area, it is anticipated that over time pupils from the Gwenneth Rickus site would move to the main Leopold Primary School site. Other local schools will be able to accommodate any pupils who wished to move school.

 

Parents of future Reception children would continue to have a range of schools to choose from. Only two schools in the area (Donnington Primary and St Joseph’s RC Primary School) were oversubscribed on national offer day for the September 2023 intake. There are several schools with spare capacity close to the Gwenneth Rickus site.

 

There were built-in problems with operating on two sites that are some distance apart including staff movement and travel time and the difficulty of shaping the two sites into one school with a shared ethos.  Despite the difficulties the  school has been very successful.

Many felt that it would have better if they operated as two separate schools but Government rules did not allow it. School expansion was allowed but not the opening of new community schools - any new school had to be an academy or free school.

The proposal is for a phased closure, as in the Strathcona case. The site would be used for other educational purposes so that it would be available for any recovery in pupil numbers. Several alternative uses are mentioned in the Cabinet paper but not the possibility of it being used by Islamia Primary School.  There is likely be a reduction in staffing as the school shrinks.

Also included in the proposals is a reduction in the size of Mitchell Brook Primary so that it takes 60 pupils a year rather than 90. This proposal is supported by the school:

 

The proposed reduction of the Pupil Admisison Number at Mitchell Brook Primary School from 90 to 60 would help to reduce spare places in other schools in the planning area. Mitchell Brook Primary Schools is rated as ‘Outstanding’ by Ofsted (September 2021). It is anticipated that Mitchell Brook Primary School will remain a popular school. However, any children who are unable to secure a place at the school would be able to access places at other local schools in the immediate area.

 

The school is in support of a reduction of the school’s PAN and has raised concerns about the constraints of continuing to operate as three forms of entry due to the school’s confined site. Although forecasts indicate low demand in Planning Area 4 in the short and medium term, the spare building capacity created by reducing the school’s PAN could be brought back into use in the future at a time when demand rises again

 

The proposals would have to go through a consultation process. An indicative timeline is included in the paper. 

 

 

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? 

Temporary reception classes at Preston Library?

The scale of the shortage of primary school places in Brent is set out in another report to the Executive:

The expansion of four primary schools is suggested plus a variety of other short-term solutions that will be controversial. The issue of providing new schools remains a low priority and is undermined by Coalition requirements that new schools should be free schools or academies in the first instance.

The four expanded schools are Barham from 3 to 4 form entry, Mitchell Brook 2-3 FE, Fryent 2-4 FE and Furness 2-3 FE. All governing bodies have agreed except for Furness which awaits the appointment of a new headteacher.

It is suggested that the closed Preston Library could provide one or two 'bulge' classes of 30 depending on adaptations and the Stonebridge Centre in Twybridge Way 120 places through provision of temporary classrooms.

Temporary expansion of existing schools include St Andrew and St Francis (30 places), Ashley Gardens (Preston Manor) 60 places, Wembley High (using 6th form provision for primary) 60 places, St Josephs Catholic Primary 30 places, Vicar's Green (an Ealing school on Brent border) 30 places, Curzon Crescent Children's Centre 30 places. College Green Nursery 25 places and Riverbank Nursery (Brentfield) 30 places.

The full report is HERE

Budget pressures: homelessness and school places shortage

The pressure on Brent Council's budget and particularly those regarding the shortage of schools places and the impact of the local housing allowance cap were revealed at the Budget Overview and Scrutiny Committee of January 11th, the Minutes of which have just been published:

Andy Donald (Director of Regeneration and Major Projects) circulated a Powerpoint presentation outlining the context in which the department's budget was set, the budget pressures and other issues facing the department and the major capital projects underway.  Andy Donald explained that because the department had only been formed in October 2010 the current year was one of transition.  The year ahead was the first chance to view the department's budget as a whole and plan for the future.  The biggest pressure on the current year's budget was the level of spend on temporary accommodation which was forecast to overspend by £928,000. 

Andy Donald explained that the main reason for the overspend was due to the Local Housing Allowance cap introduced in April 2011.  The service had in the past been managed largely as a demand led service but with a rise since 2010/11 of 38% in the number of homeless applications received and an 86% increase in the placing of families into hotels and bed and breakfast accommodation, a different approach was needed. 

Actions being taken to mitigate the overspend included the provision of advice, strategies to prevent homelessness and encouragement to take housing out of the borough.  However, Andy Donald stated that the situation was only likely to get worse as Housing Benefit and wider welfare reforms were implemented.   The committee noted that a contingency budget of £1M was being held centrally to fund any final overspend in this area for the current year.  The department's agreed savings of £3.8M remained on track with £1.2M coming from the supporting people budget, £440,000 from the staffing structure review and a collection of smaller changes to the housing service. 

      

Andy Donald drew attention to the budget issues for the future.  By 2014/15 the borough would need the equivalent of 70 additional classrooms to cater for the increased demand for school places.  A sum of £25M had been secured from the Government to help address this but a figure in the region of £60-65M was needed.  Therefore work was underway on reviewing the Council's entire portfolio of school buildings to assess how best to use the funding secured and meet the demand.  The New Homes Bonus would appear in the Council's budget for the first time in 2012/13 in the sum of £1.068M.  It had been decided that this money would be used to support the Council's capital programme.  Andy Donald reported that it was anticipated that new rules would be passed to allow Councils to recover the total cost of their planning service which would lead to an increase in income during 2012/13.  He further explained that presently planning fees were set nationally, but if the Council was allowed to recover its total cost it would generate an additional £800,000 approximately. 

  More savings were to be taken from the supporting people service and from the housing needs transformation project.  There would also be revenue savings taken from capital projects.  A big change to the Housing Revenue Account would take place on 1 April 2012 following the Government making a one-off settlement to the Council of £197M to pay off a proportion of the HRA debt and no longer provide subsidy of £8.5M in return for the Council taking responsibility for the remaining debt and retaining the rental income. 

A business plan for how the Council would in future manage, maintain and improve the housing stock was being developed but one risk already identified were the proposed changes to Housing Benefit which would result in benefit being paid direct to the tenant rather than to the Council with consequences for rent collection levels.  It was pointed out that the national rent convergence scheme would continue and so rent levels would still be determined by the Government.

Andy Donald outlined the major capital projects included in the Council's programme, including South Kilburn, the new Civic Centre, the Willesden Green redevelopment and the schools programme. 

In answer to questions asked by members of the committee concerning housing and homelessness, Andy Donald explained that when someone first presented themselves as in need of housing the first action was to see if they could be prevented from becoming statutorily homeless but if this was not possible the Council then had a duty to house them.  If there was no permanent accommodation available then temporary accommodation was used.  The Council provided advice to people in an effort to support their housing needs before they were determined statutorily homeless.  Reference was made to the rent deposit scheme and Andy Donald stated that further details on this could be provided to members.  In answer to a question about enforcing standards, it was explained that the Council could only use housing legislation to take action against sub-standard housing if it was at least three storeys high and was only resourced to carry out its statutory role, although action could be taken using planning laws.  A review of the Council's private housing service was to be carried out.

Addressing questions around the provision of school places, Andy Donald stated that, whilst there were a number of variables that would need to be considered including land availability and building types, at best the £25M would only meet between one third and half the anticipated increased demand for primary school places. 

Regarding the New Homes Bonus, Andy Donald explained that this money was provided by the government effectively matching the Council Tax for each new property built for a period of 6 years following completion and so was based on the number of new homes provided within the borough and distributed according to a formula.  Therefore the £1.68M would continue to be received over the next five years with additional funding arising from new homes subsequently built within the borough.  He stated that more detail on this could be provided if necessary.

Andy Donald explained more fully the new arrangements for managing the HRA but pointed out that financial rules relating to the HRA remained so it would continue to be ringfenced.  Clive Heaphy (Director of Finance and Corporate Services) added that as a result of the rent convergence scheme the average rent increase in Brent for 2012/13 would be 7.2%. 

The committee had previously been informed of the new arrangements proposed for retaining business rates.  A question was therefore asked as to how competing land use would be managed with the pressure to attract new businesses into the borough to increase the level of business rates and to build new houses to benefit under the New Homes Bonus.  Andy Donald acknowledged that both would generate income but would have to be managed according to planning policy and complex modelling arrangements for different parts of the borough. 

A question was asked on whether the Council was working with any neighbouring boroughs on joint projects.  Andy Donald replied that there were some discussions taking place but that Brent was generally making the running on these.  They included the potential to share some facilities management functions, housing management services and some other service provision.   

   

Andy Donald was asked to explain more fully the demand on temporary accommodation.  He stated that for the year November to November just gone the number of households in hotels and bed and breakfast had increased from 139 to 250.  It was expected that by the end of the year 1635 new homeless applications would have been received of which 580 would have been accepted.  There was a need to understand what was driving this increase but it was already known that a significant number came from landlords evicting tenants. With regard to the supporting people budget, it stood at £10.8M but £1.2M savings had been made during the current financial year with an additional £600,000 being made next year and £900,000 the year after taking the budget to £9.3M by 2013/14.  The service worked with the most vulnerable people through a raft of support mechanisms all of which were now commissioned out.  This expenditure was no longer ring-fenced.  A review of the housing needs service would result in an additional 20-25 posts being deleted but Andy Donald was confident that an effective, efficient service would continue to be delivered.  He offered to forward members more detail on the restructuring if they wished to receive it. 

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.

195 reception pupils without a school for September?

Recently Sarah Teather visited 10 Downing Street with a group of pupils from Braintcroft Primary School to urge the government to do more to ensure every child in the world received an education. Back in Brent the council is wrestling with the problem of rising pupil rolls which at present mean that 193 4 and 5 year olds need a reception school place in September with only 21 vacancies - so 172 Brent children may not be receiving education The council attribute the rise in demand to an increasing birthrate, new housing, inward migration, parental choice and rising standards and achievements in primary schools.

Some schools such as Robert Southwell and Park Lane are due to expand and others will have temporary 'bulge classes' which may not be able to move forward through the school.  The chart below sets out clearly the problem the council is facing. FULL REPORT HERE

Plans for the Quintain regeneration area around Wembley Stadium at one stage included a new primary school and further housing is due to be built there. No Section 106 agreements have yet been triggered by building milestones although Wembley City is now occupied. A new primary school there seems to be something worth urgent consideration.