Minutes:
A member of the public asked why the leadership and management of Abbey School was still controlled by Winterhill School following the outcomes of the Ofsted report?
Dorothy Smith, Director for Schools and Lifelong Learning (Children and Young People’s Services Directorate), explained that the Ofsted report commended the involvement of Winterhill School in Abbey School’s leadership and management as a strength. Abbey School has an interim executive board responsible for ensuring good and improving education is delivered.
The member of the public asked a supplementary question referring to the Ofsted report that had graded leadership and management overall as inadequate.
The Director for Schools and Lifelong Learning confirmed that leadership of all levels at the School in the Ofsted report had been inadequate. However, leadership was found to have an accurate view of the improvements needed around teaching and learning and behaviour at Abbey School.
A member of the public referred to serious failings of leadership and management found by Ofsted and asked why this was not within the report being considered by Members today?
The Director for Schools and Lifelong Learning confirmed that the consistent focus had been on leadership and management issues throughout the past when the Local Authority had worked with Abbey School. She explained that the Interim Strategic Director for Children and Young People’s Services has commissioned an external review on the previous eighteen months at the School, including the work and practise taking place, the contribution of the Local Authority and the role of leadership and management. The review would contribute to better understanding of the situation and the response will be considered as part of the consultation process.
A member of the public asked about transitional arrangements and commented that there were little or no transitional arrangements in place for the needs of the children attending Abbey School. In addition, the member of the public referred to a shambolic transition process resulting from the earlier re-structure.
The Director for Schools and Lifelong Learning explained how any transitional arrangements in place were secure and mindful of childrens’ needs. No child would be moved unless a full child-centred transition process had been conducted. These plans were being conducted by Rotherham’s Special Educational Needs Assessment team. In addition, no move would take place as a result of parents or carers being pressurised into changing their child/childrens’ School. The Director urged those members of the public present, and any other stakeholders, to contact her if they felt that there were non-secure transitions in place. All staff involved in the transitions process appreciated the difficulty faced by children who are being moved and had left their friends and staff members who they enjoyed working with and felt comfortable with.
The member of the public asked a supplementary question referring to the indecent haste with which he felt children had been moved from Abbey School with when it was not in their best interests. He asked whether this had been done to make the School appear unviable?
The Director for Schools and Lifelong Learning confirmed that there were additional places in the Borough as an alternative offer. Abbey School was not meeting all of its pupils’ needs in the short-term and could probably not meet them in the medium term, so it was in the best interests of the children in terms of them receiving a good education that the offer was being made.
A member of the public explained that he was a parent of a child attending the School. He had taken the day off work to attend the meeting and believed that many more parents of children at the School would have attended if they were able to. He asked how it was justified to create much needed places at other Special Schools and then remove the ones at Abbey School by closing it?
The Service Lead for School Planning, Admissions and Appeals (Schools and Lifelong Learning, Children and Young People’s Services Directorate) explained that the proposal to increase the admission number at Kelford School was going through a Pre-Statutory Consultation process. Should the proposal to close Abbey School be agreed and implemented further School expansions would need to be consulted upon. However at this time it would be inappropriate to commence this process.
The member of the public, who had a son attending Abbey School who would shortly be leaving, asked a supplementary question and stated that it had always been a good school. Parents wanted the School to remain open, whilst the Local Authority wanted it to close. Who knew best?
Councillor Beaumont, Cabinet Member for Children and Education Services, emphasised that the process was a consultation and a listening exercise. No decision about the School’s long-term future had yet been made.
A member of the public asked a question about why parents had been told that the School was definitely closing in April. The Local Authority was saying the proposal was being consulted upon but actions were being taken to parents and carers pressuring them to move and misinforming them.
The Director for Schools and Lifelong Learning explained that the situations described should not have occurred and had been looked into immediately that they were reported to the Local Authority. The proposal to close Abbey School was under consultation and no parent should feel pressurised. The Director had given this clear message to the Teams and individuals involved.
The member of the public asked a supplementary question and asked why Teachers at Abbey School had been threatened with disciplinary measures?
The Director for Schools and Lifelong Learning was not aware that this had happened but confirmed that this would usually be something that was undertaken at the School-level.
The Cabinet Member for Children and Education Services asked individual examples to be raised with the Local Authority if it was felt necessary and that any pressure to move children to a different School should have immediately stopped.
A member of the public who had a son attending the School asked who was going to gain from the closure of Abbey School. She agreed that the message to parents from the Special Educational Needs Assessment Service had been that the School was closing.
The Cabinet Member for Children and Education Services emphasised that the proposal to close Abbey School was still in the consultation stage and no decision had been made by Elected Members about the future of the School.
A member of the public asked, should the proposal to close the School be agreed, would the existing site be utilised for education purposes?
The Service Lead for School Planning, Admissions and Appeals explained that the Department for Education’s guidance relating to surplus land and premises. Initially it would be considered for other education uses by the Local Authority. If it was not needed for this purpose, Academy and Free Schools would have the opportunity to express an interest in the land and premises. Only if there was no interest at this stage would the site be offered up for other purposes. Throughout the Pre-Statutory and Statutory Consultation processes alternative uses for the site would not be considered as it would be inappropriate in the consultation stage.
The member of the public asked a supplementary process to confirm whether any of the local schools, including Kelford and Winterhill, had expressed an interest in the use of Abbey School’s site from 31st August, 2015?
Councillor Beaumont, and the Service Lead for School Planning, Admissions and Appeals, confirmed that no such expressions of interest had been received.
A member of the public who was the parent of a young person attending the School asked what would happen when she had to leave the School where she was so well established and where she did not have long to go until she left school?
The Director for Schools and Lifelong Learning welcomed the opportunity to discuss with parents and carers outside of the meeting individual circumstances. She also suggested that families contact the Special Educational Needs Assessment Service to discuss their child/children’s circumstances.
The member of the public commented that as his daughter was older he had been advised to leave her at Abbey School for as long as possible. Unfortunately she was becoming upset as her friends left the School and this was beginning to impact on her behaviour.
A member of the public referred to a meeting that had been held in a licenced premises in the locality of the School on the previous Wednesday. This was when many parents had first learned about the proposal. They had reported feeling disgusted about how they had found out.
The Service Lead for School Planning, Admissions and Appeals explained that the proposal had been published on the Council’s website a full week before this meeting. This had been when the proposal had become a public document, no meetings had been arranged on the consultation as it was important to secure authorisation from the Cabinet Member to proceed first.
A member of the public referred to long and positive working relationships between Schools in Rotherham and the Local Authority. What meaningful dialogue had taken place between the Local Authority and Abbey School in the lead up to this proposal?
The Director for Schools and Lifelong Learning outlined a number of meetings that had taken place regarding the need for the school to improve, before the Ofsted Inspection and following the Ofsted report outcomes, meetings were also held with the School Effectiveness Service. The Local Authority was continuing to work with Abbey School.
The member of the public asked a supplementary question on the restructure of Abbey School where nine members of staff had lost their job. When new posts were created it appeared that they had been done in a way that would mean existing staff would not get them, including no requirement for Special Educational Needs experience or subject specific teaching at GCSE-level not being required.
Ian Thomas, Interim Strategic Director for Children and Young People’s Services Directorate, referred to the Ofsted report that stated that Abbey School was inadequate. They key findings included that young people were not guided well enough, they were able to abscond from the School and were at risk in that situation, exclusions were high, recording was not accurate, the School did not have high enough expectations of their students, lessons were not interesting and suitably challenging leading to poor behaviour. Furthermore, outcomes at Key Stages Two and Four were exceptionally low. Children who were disadvantaged performed less well and did not achieve their potential. These concerns had led to the commissioning of an external reviewer, Peter Bell, who was a National Leader of Education, an Ofsted inspector and an Executive Headteacher of two Special Schools that had been judged to be Outstanding. Peter would conduct an independent and thorough review and would report back at the end of January, 2015. This would be used to inform the Member decision on the future of Abbey School.
A member of the public confirmed how Trade Unions had been raising issues at Abbey School for twelve months, including pointing out where problems lay and providing ways to fix them. The Trade Unions had begged for help and felt disgusted that it had not been forthcoming from the Local Authority.
The Interim Strategic Director for Children and Young People’s Services Directorate confirmed that Peter Bell would speak with all stakeholders at Abbey School, consider all reports that had been made and consider the leadership and management support that had been in place at the School since 2011 and report back on his findings.
Councillor C. Vines referred to earlier Ofsted reports at Abbey School when it had been very successful as recently at 2011. He cited the current leadership and management structures as leading to the gradual decline of the School to its current Ofsted inspection of inadequate. The Local Authority’s involvement in the recent leadership and management appeared to be creating a situation where the School would be certain to fail with the intention of closing it. He had engaged a high-calibre external reviewer who had reported back to him concerns at Abbey School. Why did the Local Authority not start to intervene when the School started to fail?
The Director for Schools and Lifelong Learning confirmed that the Local Authority had intervened from January, 2013.
The Strategic Director for Children and Young People’s Services Directorate explained that it would not be in any side’s interests to run any school into the ground. Peter Bell’s external review would consider all of these factors.
Councillor Beaumont thanked all members of the public for attending and for their questions. She also thanked the Officers in attendance for their responses to the questions. Councillor Beaumont emphasised that the consultation on the proposal was still in its early days and she committed to listen to all of the responses and feedback received regarding the proposal. She explained her personal background of being a retired teacher to all age-ranges, including working with children with Special Educational Needs, and as a parent, grandparent and governor. It was her aspiration that all children and young people would get the best. She realised how important Abbey School was to the community and also how difficult the process was. She wished stakeholders to be reassured and come away from the meeting feeling that she would listen to them.
Resolved:- That the questions made be considered as part of the consultation process in relation to Abbey School.