Agenda item

(Report by- Mr K Abbott, Director, Resources and Planning, Mr G Ward, Director, Capital and Infrastructure,  Ms  R Turner, Managing Director, Children, Families & Education Directorate and Mrs S Hohler, Cabinet Member for Children, Families & Education)

(Mr L Christie, Leader of the Labour Group was present for this Item and was given permission to speak by the Chairman)

(1)   The Committee discussed a report that gave an update on the coalition Government’s new academies and free schools proposals together with information on the emerging broader Government agenda for Schools Reform and summarised the proposals in the Academies Bill and highlighted the key implications and concerns for local authorities and schools. It also provided a preliminary outline of key elements expected to feature in the coalition Government’s second Education Bill expected around mid-October.

(2)   The Chairman asked Mr Abbott to introduce the report.  Mr Abbott advised that 16 Kent schools had formally voted to convert to academy status and on Friday, 16 July the Secretary of State agreed in principle to five of those schools converting to academy status from 1 September 2010, which were; the Hayesbrook School, Tonbridge, Fulston Manor School, Sittingbourne, Dartford Grammar School for Boys and Canterbury High School with its federated Primary School.  Other schools may be agreed this week.

Mr Abbott felt that the decision on those five schools one week before the end of term, with no legislation in place at this stage, meant that it would not be possible for the processes of Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) (TUPE), land, property and financial transfer issues to be completed by 1 September in line with the Department for Education (DFE) expectation.  Mr Abbott advised that he had already written to the 16 schools that wished to convert to academy status to initiate work in terms of the transition planning with them.  The schools all recognised the issue of the timing and were happy to work with the local authority in planning what would happen and when.  The position would vary school by school depending on the school’s status and the property and land issues that arose.  He explained that concerns had been raised with the Local Government Association (LGA) and the Association of Directors of Children's Services Ltd(ADCS) for many weeks but to date little had been received by way of answers from the DFE.

(3)   In response to a question by Mr Tolputt, Mr Abbott explained that there was a need to distinguish between the new academies and the free schools.  The new academies in terms of the land transfer would receive a 125 year lease and in terms of the site they would get what they were entitled to in line with statute and current regulations.  For free schools it was different, there was a process that was set out on page 102, paragraph (3), where free schools were located would be determined by the group establishing the free school, which was different to academies, and for existing maintained schools converting.

(4)   Mr Christie made a declaration of interest as his daughter was a teacher at one of the schools mentioned by Mr Abbott in paragraph (2) above, which was noted by the Committee.

(5)     In response to our questions by Mr Christie, Mr Abbott advised that he was not aware of the position of nursery schools inspected as outstanding but agreed to find out and advise Members outside the meeting.

(6)   Mr Abbott explained that there was now an expectation that it would be good practise for the schools to consult parents and communities regarding their plans to convert to academy status but as things stood at present there was no formal requirement for that to happen.

(7)    Mr Abbott referred the Committee to appendix A, page 118, advising that this was grouped on the basis of those schools that achieved ‘outstanding’ in their Ofsted inspection were given the option to be fast tracked to convert to academy status if they wished to pursue this.  He agreed to circulate the analysis on this to Members. 

(8)   Mr Abbott went on to advise on the financial impact of the schools converting to the new academies status, explaining that it did depend on what the government did beyond this year.  Referring to page 118 he explained that as a school moved to new academy status it would take its formative budget, a neutral impact on the local Authority (LA) and the school. For central services, from the DFE’s published ready reckoner, the 15 schools (now 16) would receive £4.249m paid by the DFE.  The amount removed from the LA budget would be £736k.  That £736k would go to those schools, along with a lot of costs.  There would be some impact on the LA but this would be minor as a lot of the costs would go to those schools.  The issue would come if all those schools were to convert in a full year; the DFE would currently have to find £3½m top up to reflect other central services, which currently the DFE was not removing the funding from local authorities for.  (If all schools were to go then this would reveal large figures as reflected in the table on page 118).  From the DFE’s Customer Impact Assessment it was aware of the sustainability issues in the future of this top up if there was the sort of take up that the government was hoping to achieve with the new policy.  The DFE had said in its published document that it would be speaking with departments, communities and local government on how to fund that in the future. With the LA’s experience of Grant Maintained schools and funding this was similar to the model of 15 years ago.  There was concern that the government may have to come back to LAs to remove all of the £4.2m not just the £736k for those 15 schools.   If the Government continued as things stood there would be less impact, if they looked for full recovery for new academies central services there would be a big issue for local authorities if a significant number of schools moved to new academy status.  It was hoped that there would be confirmation on this in the Autumn alongside the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) announcement.

(9)   In reply to a question by Mr Walder, Mr Abbott explained that the LA was not the current employer for a number of these schools.  This would be an issue for the governing body of those schools as the first 5 schools that had been approved by the Secretary of State for academy status were all foundation schools.  One of the reasons for writing to all 16 schools that had voted for converting to academy status was to make clear the point that the arrangements and the governments expectation that consultation with TUPE etc was done over the Summer break was not possible.  Mr Abbott felt that November would be a far more realistic time to begin the consultation, in terms of the legal processes that schools would need to go through.

(10)    In reply to a comment by Mr Smith, Mr Cooke suggested that it was about how the local authority’s role developed with the schools what ever type of school they were.  Mr Abbott added that the 8.7% referred to the dedicated Schools Grant, KCC was in the bottom quartile, there were other South East LAs that were 17%, nationally some were in the 20%, which was all a reflection of where authorities had saved money in the past on budgets saving delegated funding to schools, some authorities still managed on a central basis, there was a reason for the variance because of decisions made over many years by both Members and the Schools Funding Forums.  The 8.7% did not cover what was the top up of £3½m, which related to the base budget, the council tax and the government general grant.

(11)     In reply to a question by Mr Whiting, Mr Abbott advised that the LA had no formal role in the Secretary of States decision the Diocese Boards and Education Boards did.  The process for the LA was through a weekly conference call with the DFE when it sought information they should know regarding the schools that wished to convert to academy status.  The LA provided a matrix of information about loans; current budget positions etc but had no role in the decision. 

(12)    Mr Ward added that regarding the leasing/loaning of land the current advice was still being looked at.  Regarding the current academies the land would revert back to the local authority even if it were a foundation school and it would be leased/licensed back for 125 years.  He advised that in one case the LA leased back less land that was handed back that was in part to deliver a receipt that the authority wished to contribute to building an academy.  He felt that the expectation was that the LA would have to lease back the land the school had to date with the 16 schools. Mr Cooke added that whilst the authority was not part of the consultation process it was campaigning in specific areas but as far as the schools were concerned the position of the authority to date had been to remain strictly neutral, what ever the school wished to do the LA was respecting their autonomy to make that considered decisions.

(13)    Mr Abbott advised that to date there had been no proposals received for a free school in Kent.  He understood that the earliest that a free school could be established was September 2011.  

(14)    In response to questions by Mr Christie, Mr Ward advised that the Harnessing Technology Grant made free Broad Band available to Primary and Secondary schools up to a prescribed band width. The CFE Directorate was working on the basis that the Harnessing Technology Grant would end this financial year, so had been working with schools to ensure that the Broad Band continued to exist.  The reduction outlined in the report on page 102 paragraph 3.2 of £1.35m or 25% of what had been lost as a result of the decision of free schools.  Since the initial announcement of saving there had been addition savings made on the Harnessing Technology Grant, which had totalled £2.7m or 50%.  This was not an issue for the current financial year for schools as the grant ran until August 2011.  This meant that there would be an increase in cost for the schools Broad Band facility from 1 April 2011.

(15)    In response to a question on petitions, Mr Adams advised that there was already existing legislation that places a duty on the local authority to consider parental representations, which meant that it was currently possible for members of the public or groups of the public, to ask the local authority to bring about some form of structural change in the locality.  The legislation was silent on what constituted parental representation as to whether it was an individual or a group of one thousand parents.  Mr Adams considered that these issues may simply go to the Department for Children Schools and Families (DCSF) or DEF officials and the Secretary of State as oppose to the legislation that the local authority worked within which would require public consultation.

(16)    In reply to questions by Mr Tolputt, Mr Abbott advised that free schools and the new academies would not be able to get their insurance cover from the local authority, the government had recognise that and as part of the settlement package there was an additional top up grant of £60-£100 k for the academies.

(17)    The Reverend Canon Smith announced that he was retiring. The Reverend Canon Smith was originally appointed to the former Education Committee in 1999.  This was his last meeting with the County Council. 

(18)    RESOLVED that:

(a)   the Members wished to formally thank the Reverend Canon Smith for  all his work on the Education Committees over the years and wished him a long and happy retirement;

(b)   Mr Abbott agreed to circulate the analysis regarding information on appendix A, page 118 and find out the position of nursery schools inspected as ‘outstanding’ and report back to Members outside the meeting; and

(c)   the report be noted.