Agenda item

1)    The Cabinet Member for Education and Health Reform introduced this item, it had been requested by the Committee and was an issue of Policy on which the County Council had made its views clear.  KCC was not opposed to academies, and worked well with the many across Kent.  Mr Gough considered that both academies and free schools could bring additional qualities to the Educational system with Multi-Academy Trusts being an important part.  There were, however, objections over the compulsion to convert schools to academy status.  KCC did not consider that there was a significant evidence base to support the proposal to convert all schools to academy status.  There were further questions around capacity needed to undertake the conversion with significant costs both in time and financially.  The local authority would continue to have a fairly significant role particularly in relation to place planning, the admissions system and children with special educational needs (SEN).  The County Council would adapt to emerging legislation, however there was considerable opposition to forced academisation.  KCC would seek to maintain responsibility for creating challenge in relation to school standards.

2)     A Member commended the Cabinet Member for his clear and honest response, it was an ongoing situation and pleasing to see that the leaders of all parties had raised objections – had there been any discussions with Kent MPs?   It was felt that the White Paper proposals could be amended if there was enough political opposition.  Concerns were raised about the role of the local authority in relation to admissions, particularly where there were difficult relationships between the Council and the Academy Trusts and the removal of the role in school improvement.

3)    In relation to school capacity Mr Gough explained that the Council worked with academies on this issue and this would continue.  In reality, if a maintained school did not wish to expand it was difficult for the Council to insist so this was a complex issue whether the system was academised or not. 

4)    In relation to school improvement the suggestion was that the Local Authority should ‘step back’ from school improvement during summer 2017.  However many schools would not become academies until 2022.  The Cabinet Member recalled the weekly improving Ofsted ratings of many of Kent’s primary schools.  In response to the previous question the Council had been communicating with Kent MPs.

5)    Other Members thanked the Cabinet Member for a clear brief; it was heartening that all parties were in agreement over the opposition to the proposal.  In response to a question about the costs to the local authority in the process of conversion, since 2010 180 schools had converted and there were more than double that number remaining still to be converted.  The legal cost to the County Council of the schools which had transferred to academy status already was £1.1-£1.2 million.  Staffing costs were also being considered, there was no reserve within the Education Directorate budget for the additional costs and planning work was beginning.    

6)    Concerns were raised about the diminution of the role of Parent Governors in schools, it was thought that those schools which had good support from Parent Governors performed well.  Concerns had been raised through the Select Committee on Grammar Schools and Social Mobility about Multi-Academy Trusts and the ability of children within the academy system to make the best choice for their future education.  A Member stated that there was a better chance of a school improving standards if it was a KCC controlled school rather than an academy.  There were serious concerns about failing or underperforming academy trusts and KCC’s role in supporting the children in these schools.  The Cabinet Member confirmed that the White Paper removed the obligation to have Parent Governors at schools.  With regards to the options available for young people and secondary schools this was ultimately the choice and responsibility for the family and KCC was working to ensure children and their families were aware of the options available.  With regards to standards, there were instances were academies were a route to improvement, however the evidence base for the proposals was weak and the Council would continue to monitor and raise concerns with the Education Commissioner. 

7)    It was asked if KCC would monitor Academy Trusts and receive reports on where they were proving successful or where there were problems.  It was thought that KCC would wish to take on this role; however it was unclear whether the proposals would provide for such monitoring.  The Council did wish to support the sharing of information and continue to be a champion of standards in schools.  

8)     There continued to be strong support for the Cabinet Member in opposing the proposed academisation of all schools from all political groups on the Scrutiny Committee.  It was thought that all local authorities opposed total academisation by 2022.  It was considered that the remaining role of KCC was a duty of care to the children in Kent and that KCC would be left to support children when Academy Schools failed.  Kent’s primary schools were doing extremely well, there were concerns about how Academy Trust sponsors would approach failing schools and how they would work to improve failing schools.  Would Looked After Children (LAC) have priority in applying for schools under academisation?

9)    The Cabinet Member explained that it was not confirmed that LAC would have priority in the admissions process under academisation however there were guidelines which underpinned the admissions system.  It was suggested that the White Paper should not be seen in isolation it was linked to the School Funding Consultation and these documents outlined the role of the Local Authority in relation to, for example, vulnerable students, co-ordinating and overseeing the admissions process and school transport.  It remained unclear how this would be funded but the Council was making strong representation on these developments.

10)   In relation to the increase in housing in Kent and the demand for education places a Member asked for further information comparing increased demand on schools places with funding received from Council Tax.  The Cabinet Member explained that expansion of schools was paid for, in part, by Government through the basic need formula.  In relation to new housing, developer contributions also contributed to school funding.  The Cabinet Member confirmed that within the Commissioning Plan any gaps in funding would be set out, however there were unknowns for the future, for example the Freeschools programme and how they would be delivered. 

11) A Member commented on the excellent relationship of one of his local Multi-Academy Trusts with the County Council.  This Multi-Academy Trust had a policy of the best education, fairest education and choice. 

12) A Member commented on the inevitable decline of the role of the elected Member of the Council in the school system, there were concerns over the increased difficulties in involvement of local members in the acadmisation process.

RESOLVED that the Scrutiny Committee:

-       thank the guests for attending the meeting and for answering Members’ questions

-       was unanimous in its support of the actions of the Cabinet Member and the Leader in asking that Government withdraw the proposed academisation programme

-       wished to ensure that the role, in schools, of elected members and parent governors continues

-       ask the Chairman to send a letter to the Secretary of State for Education expressing the concerns of the Committee (provide copy to Committee Members) and additionally write to all Kent MPs requesting their support and enclosing a copy of the Secretary of State letter

-       request the support of the Local Authority Leaders with responsibility for Education through the County Council network.