1

Proposal for Foundation StatusforBrentsidePrimary School

6th November 2009

1a.School details; BrentsidePrimary School, Kennedy Road, HanwellW71JL

1b.The proposed implementation date. 1st April 2010

1c. Objections and comments.

Any comments or objections concerning this proposal should be sent to Foundation School Proposals, Brentside Primary School, Kennedy Road W71JL by ** November 2009.

1d.Evidence of Formal Consultation from 4th September to 5th October 2009

  1. List of persons consulted. Appendix 1
  2. Minutes of public meetings. Appendix 2
  3. The views of persons consulted. Appendix 3
  4. Copy of consultation documents. Appendix 4
  5. Time line of foundation events. Appendix 5

Before publishing these proposals the Governing Body of BPS has consulted a range of local stakeholders.

All applicable statutory requirements in relation to the proposals to consult at all stages were complied with in line with the DCFS document ‘A guide to Governing Bodies, ChangingSchool to Foundation Category’. The documents Annex 1 to 5 constitute the consultation documents and supporting evidence these documents were made available to allof the stakeholders from the school office.

The consultation period took place from 4th September to the 4th October 2008. The governing body met on the 12th Octoberto consider the feedback to the consultation process before deciding whether toproceed further.

The overall outcome was that stakeholders were overwhelmingly in support of the proposed changes particularly from parents, pupils, local residents and staff.

Theresponses of particular groups of stakeholders are outlined below.

Summary of the consultation responses.

Table showing numeric responses to questionnaire from a range of BPS stakeholders.

Votes in favour / Votes in favour with
reservations / Votes against
pupils / 131 / 15 / 4
staff / 12 / 9 / 0
parents / 89 / 1 / 1
local residents / 73 / 0 / 0
Wider stakeholders / 1 / 2 / 3
Total responses / 306 / 26 / 8

1 response resident no opinion

1 response local school no opinion

Percentages for and against BPS changing from community to foundation status.

90% in favour

7.5% in favour but with reservations

2.5% against

Summary of wider community stakeholders.

Consultation documents were sent with ‘stamped addressed envelop’ to 53 organisations or public representatives. These fell into seven categories and are as follows;

  1. National and regional politicians. Four were consulted and one Richard Barnes GLA responded favourably and no reply from the others.
  2. Ealing and Hobbayne ward councillors and Local Council officers. Fourteen were consulted and responded and there was one combined response from Councillor Ian Gibb and David Archibald Director of Children Services for Ealing.
  3. Local Primary schools.Seven were consulted with and there were one response ‘in agreement with reservations’ from Hobbayne school was returned.
  4. Local High Schools. Seven High schools were consulted and two responded one from BrentsideHigh School who had no opinion and one from ElthorneParkHigh School who did not agree with BPS changing to Foundation status.
  5. Local Children’s Centres. Eight were consulted with and no responses returned from this category.
  6. Local Medical practices. There were eight consulted with and no responses returned.
  7. Staff Unions. There were two responses from the NASUWT and ATL teachers unions, they too were not in favour of BPS changing from Community to Foundation status.

Of the five responses received from the wider community stakeholders three did not agree that BPS should move to Foundation status for the following reasons.

Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL)

ATL Union believes that:

  • Foundation status would result in ‘a drive to privatise the management of our educational system.’
  • The possibility of corruption increases under Foundation status.
  • The LA and Government should take the lead in promoting community cohesion and raising aspirations and are a government responsibility. Foundation status distances the Local Government from their responsibilities.
  • The creation of Foundation and trust school removes power form the local authorities
  • Foundation Schools are no longer part of a community of schools.
  • SEN and admission criteria may not be applied unfairly.

NASUWT Teachers Union.

Objections raised:

  • Breaks up the cohesion of the LA.
  • The school has benefitted from the LA service to improve.
  • No evidence provided to support the transition.
  • Removing the land assets from the taxpayers of Ealing and the parents.

ElthorneHigh School

  • BPS is funded by of the Ealing LA and should remain accountable to the community through its elected representatives.
  • The proposal is an overreaction to with last year’s disagreement with the council about the schools admission levels.

From the above it appears that these stakeholders share ideological concerns about distribution of power and accountability for Foundation Schools both at national and regional levels.

The governing body of BPS rather view Foundation status as a means of strengthening of our statutory accountability to all our stakeholders and look forward to more dynamic partnerships with the LA, parents and child centred professional bodies. We are seeking to explore and utilise the existing statutory frame work to enable us to provide the best for our pupils and staff.Furthermore it was never our intention to leave the family of Ealing schools but to continue to work closely together.

With reference to the support of SEN and Vulnerable pupils BrentsidePrimary school already has an exemplary proven record of promoting and achieving educational achievement and progress in pupils who face challenges. It is the intension of the governing body to move towards Trust Status, seeking partners (but not Business Partners) who too seek to increase the life chances of vulnerable pupils.

However on a positive note we welcome and share the view of Richard Barnes of the GLA ‘Foundation status will give the school the opportunity to shape and determine its own destiny and those of the children’.

The response from the from Councillor Ian Gibb and David Archibald representatives of Ealing Council falls in to the category of agrees with some reservations. The reservation relate to;

  • Reminding the governors of BPS of the statutory powers of the LA. As indicated earlier the governors of BPS have never sought to operate outside the statutory frame work surrounding school governance and accountability rather to work more closely in a more equitable partnership.
  • The governors shares the concerns of the LA , staff and parents relating to leadership succession at BPS. In reality this is a dilemma all schools face, community and foundation alike. It is to this end that the governors propose to seek Trust status next year to enable the vision and integrity of the child centred provision of BPS to remain a priority irrespective of changes in leadership or governors.
  • We do not accept that BPS governors have not accurately informed the parents and others of the increased responsibilities of Foundation status. In relation to the site once BPS becomes a Foundation school any building or development to the school or its lands can only take place with the consent of the school governors and community. Furthermore the parent’s written consultation responses reveal an understanding of Foundation status which is insightful, sophisticated, accurate and pragmatic.
  • In conclusion Ealing Council has no specific objection to BPS attaining Foundation status.

Staff Stakeholders

Of the twenty one staff that responded to the consultation all agreed that BPS should change to Foundation status, however nine agreed with reservations. These reservations surrounded include

  • Change in leadership
  • Working conditions relating to contracts
  • Accountability of the governing body.

The main points staff expressed in support of BPS moving to Foundation status are as follows;

  • Greater flexibility to work towards the interests of the children.
  • Greater flexibility to shape the curriculum and resources to the needs of pupils.
  • Likely to facilitate a closer working relationship between staff, parents and governors.
  • Enable the school to take greater account of the needs and voices of the stake holders.
  • Enable the school to make decisions that are in the best interests of the school community.

At onset of this process the governors of BPS of the made a decision that all support staff conditions of service will remain with those agreed by Ealing Council. In this context there will be no changes in conditions of service and pay.

Again some members of staff have voiced concerns about leadership succession. We refer to our response earlier in this matter.

Parent Stakeholders

Ninety one parents responded to the consultation of which one agreed with reservations and one did not agree to BPS changing to Foundation status. The parent that agreed with reservations expressed concerns about a dominant religious group emerging in the governors which could change the policies of the school. The parent that disagreed expressed the view that there may be too many pupils.

The recurrent views of parents who agreed are as follows;

  • Leaders should be able to make decisions which are in the interests of children.
  • Foundation status will safeguard the existing benefits of the school.
  • ‘The autonomies afforded by Foundation status will enable the school to develop a longer term strategy within the existing framework without having to comply with additional LA agenda that may run counter to or may not recognise or prioritise the school’s particular needs or the needs of the school’s local community’.
  • To preserve what the school has achieved and to move on to new successes.
  • Opportunity to excel on its own terms with less red tape.
  • Foundation status will ensure the pupils will come first and the parents will have a stronger voice.
  • Many parents think it is good for the school to own its own land as ownership will control how the land is developed.
  • More control over resources, maintain current level of intake appropriate to the size of the school.

Pupil stakeholders

When consulting with pupils we asked the pupils of KS2

  1. To indicate whether they agreed that BPS should change to a FoundationSchool
  2. To indicate if they were unsure whether BPS should become a Foundation school.
  3. To indicate if they did not agree with BPS changing to a Foundation school

Of the pupils consulted 131 were in favour of BPS going to Foundation status, 15 pupils were unsure and 4 pupils did not agree with BPS changing to Foundation status.

Pupils who were unsure were concerned that;

  • Lots of people like our school but if we change to Foundation people may not like us.
  • It might be good to own our own land but the governors may not be able to handle it.
  • There are some things in the school we don’t want to get rid of and some things should change.

Those pupils who expressed a view that BPS should not change governance status stated that

  • We have got it under control and are going to leave it like that.
  • Because it will be bigger.

However the majority of the pupils were in favour of BPS becoming a Foundation school for various reasons.

  • We can decide what happens to the school
  • We will own the land.
  • Because the school feels like a family.
  • We want the best for our school.
  • Because I don’t want people to take over.
  • Because it’s a good idea that the governors run this school.
  • It will be safe here.

When looking at the response of our pupils we have to take into consideration this is the third formal consultation these children have been party to this year relating to the future of the school.

Local resident stakeholders.

We consulted with the residents in the immediate roads around the school by delivering consultation documents and asking them to respond. Added to this the parent governors spoke personally to many residents and liaised closely with the Kennedy Road Neighbourhood Watch committee. The residents returned 73 responses to the school; all were in favour.

In summary in this formal consultation to determine the views of our immediate and more remote stakeholders we had 340 written responses of which 306 were in favour, 26 in favour with reservations and 8 not in favour of BPS changing to Foundation status.

The common theme of those who are in favour is the view that the school leadership will more accurately reflect the aspirations and wishes of the immediate school community of parents, staff and pupils if the school changes to Foundation status. Clearly given that we have had three formal consultations this year concerning doubling the size of this school the autonomy implicit in owning the school land is prominent, particularly with local residents and some parents.

Of those who express reservations, but in principle agree with BPS changing to Foundation status the area of future leadership is the most dominant concern.

Of those stakeholders who are not in favour, four of the eight in this category are from wider community. Strikingly the concerns of the immediate residents around the school, the parents, pupils and staff reveal an investment in leadership, autonomy of the school and a resolve to cut the ‘red tape’ rather than preserving the sovereignty of the LA.

2a The name of the Foundation will be BrentsidePrimary School.

2b Why are we seeking to move to Foundation status acquiring and what ethos will that bring to the school?

The Governors of BPS believe they are ready for the added responsibilities of Foundation Governance. The main changes are;

  1. In Foundation schools the Governing Body owns the land.
  2. The Governing body becomes the single employer.
  3. The governing body become their own admissions authority.

The governors of BPS believe that Foundation status will

  • Offers more flexibility on their membership
  • GB have the ability to set their own agenda and determine business
  • Strategic and accountability role remains unchanged however we believe that the leadership of the school will be in a better position to respond and plan for the local needs of our pupils and wishes of parents.

Historically BPS serves a school population that bears the statistical markers of inequality in terms of access to education and adequate housing. As Governors we have already ‘narrowed’ the gap by providing a curriculum and pedagogy that bridges the obstacles to achievement associated with deprivation and hardship.

An important element of our success has been the creative development of the school site and learning environment. This has been central to strengthening our capacity to enable pupils to experience school as somewhere that routinely supports and accelerates their learning. It also engenders a sense of pride and ownership in children as well as providing space for reflection and play. We intend to develop this further again by seeking Trust Partners thatwill support and develop our school identity as a creative school.

Further to this Brentside has become increasingly independent of the LA.

In the last five years BPS has commissioned services from outside the LA for site and HR. We found that using free market providers has provided better value for money and supported the needs of our pupils more effectively. It has also led to the site and buildings being well managed and safe.

In the last four years we have changed our staffing structure to meet the needs and complexities of a 21st century school. We have our own dedicated site administrator and finance officer and we successfully achieved FMSis (a very rigorous national audit of our finances) earlier this year. Both in the management of site, health and safety and finance Brentside Primary governors are ready and prepared to take on the added responsibilities of Foundation status.In our last Ofsted Inspection, the lead inspector said, that we had the best curriculum resources he had seen in a school and most importantly that they were being used by teachers and pupils.

We are now in the position where the only service we buy back from Ealing Council is payroll and HR contracts. In truth we have achieved an independence which is not typical of community schools and Foundation Status would afford us the benefits of independence rather than the complexities of trying to fit between the accountability to the DCFS and LA whilst striving to do what is best for our children.

Why should BPS change to Foundation Status?

We are strengthened in the knowledge that transition from Community to Foundation schools is clearly part of this government’s strategy, as a means of encouraging individual schools to be more independent of the LA. We wish to eventually become a trust school making new partnerships with Children’s Charities and Societies to further develop our role in narrowing the attainment gaps for vulnerable children. Our school is passionately committed to resolving and overcoming inequalities and obstacles experienced by those children from deprived backgrounds, those fromethnic groups, children who need special protection and children in care.