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.
