Apologies for absence were received from Charles Hoseason and Paul Leonard.

In accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct, Members are requested to declare any interests orally at the start of the meeting and again immediately before consideration of the matter. Members are reminded to specify the agenda item number to which it refers and whether the interest is of a personal or prejudicial nature.

Members are also reminded of the requirements of Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 that they should declare and not vote on specified matters if they are two months or more in arrears with their Council Tax payments.

Agenda item 4 (Proposed Academies at Hampton and Whitton:

Councillor Elloy declared a personal interest by virtue of his wife being a teacher at Richmond upon Thames College.

Councillor Nicholson declared a personal interest by virtue of being a governor at Hampton Junior School.

Councillor Treble declared a personal interest by virtue of being a governor at Heathfield Nursery and Infant School.

Councillor Marlow declared a personal interest by virtue of being a governor at Orleans Park School.

Councillor Eady declared a personal and prejudicial interest by virtue of being a Cabinet Member.

Agenda item 5 (Proposed Academy at Shene):

Councillor Elloy declared a personal interest by virtue of his wife being a teacher at Richmond upon Thames College.

Councillor Nicholson declared a personal interest by virtue of being a governor at Hampton Junior School.

Councillor Treble declared a personal interest by virtue of being a governor at Heathfield Nursery and Infant School.

Councillor Marlow declared a personal interest by virtue of being a governor at Orleans Park School.

Councillor Eady declared a personal and prejudicial interest by virtue of being a Cabinet Member.

Councillor Stanier declared a personal interest by virtue of her sons having previously attended Shene School.

Agenda item 4 (Proposed Academies at Hampton and Whitton):

·         Mr Trevor Clarke

·         Mr Gerry German

·         Mr George Low

·         Mr Ray Alen

Agenda item 5 (Proposed Academy at Shene):

·         Susan Kramer

·         Cllr Urquhart

The report updates progress on the development of the proposed academies at Hampton and Whitton prior to Cabinet making decisions on the proposals to close the existing schools and replace them with academies.

Report of the Director of Children’s Services and Culture attached.

The Committee received representations from members of the public, with views being summarised below:

Mr Gerry German:

·        Representing the Anti-Academies Alliance.

·        The Alliance questioned how much community control over local schools would be lost and believed that there needed to be more accountability.

·        There had been much publicity over what academies would be doing with schools, but in the Alliance’s view, this was nothing new from what good schools should be doing anyway.

·        Schools and local authorities were being offered financial incentives which they found difficult to refuse.

Following questions from members of the Committee, the meeting was advised that:

o       Mr German was speaking about the academies programme in general.

o       The organisation that Mr German was speaking on behalf of also helped parents with other education related issues.

o       The organisation represented hundreds of people.

Mr George Low:

·        Was also representing a group of parents.

·        Offered his thanks to Councillor Samuel and Matthew Paul for their help during this process.

·        The Appleyards consultation was not of a satisfactory nature because the questions were very difficult to disagree with.

·        Wanted an independent study to evaluate Kunskapsskolan’s (KS) effectiveness after some time of running Hampton Community College (HCC), which would enable the Council to end involvement with them should it not be working.

Following questions from members of the Committee, the meeting was advised that:

o       One of the questions in the Appleyards consultation that Mr Low felt was difficult to disagree with was “Do you agree with personal development?”

o       Another concern held by Mr Low was his belief that there would be up to two years of disruption for those at HCC following the inception of KS.

o       Mr Low was representing around 30 parents, some of whom, it was suggested, were moving out of HCC’s catchment area to avoid the academy.

Mr Ray Alen:

·        This proposal would determine the nature of education in the area for years to come, with no easy way out, should things not work. With this in mind, if there were any doubts, the Council should pull out.

·        The Swedish education model had given rise to much controversy in Sweden and it was now proving to be a big election issue, owing to some areas having falling results.

·        If there was an issue with this system in Sweden, it should not be replicated here.

Following questions from members of the Committee, the meeting was advised that:

o       Results at HCC had been steadily improving and this was down to good quality teaching.

o       There was a member of the Hampton Society who was from Sweden and they were against the KS proposals.

o       The group would like to see a 6^th form at HCC.

Mr Trevor Clarke:

·        Should not be going ahead with the proposals only to decide the details later and most of the support for the plans appeared to be coming from people who do not have any connection with the school.

·        Cited a figure that suggested 1 in 3 academies fail.

·        The consultation was unreliable as there was a low response rate.

The Cabinet Member for Children’s Services and Education, the Director for Children’s Services and Education and the Director of Kunskapsskolan UK presented further information to the Committee:

·        The admissions criteria would remain and it would be administered in the same fashion as it was for a Voluntary Aided school.

·        KS was not typical of the Swedish education system and had developed its own teaching methods, many of which it found were already being used in part by many successful schools in England.

·        It was recognised that building work was worrying for parents, but the level of disruption would be minimised as much as possible by experienced building contractors.

·        There was arguably a greater level of governance in KS schools, as they had parent councils which could hold the leadership team and the Trust to account.

·        Richmond upon Thames College would continue to guarantee places to all students from schools in the borough.

·        There was no evidence of parents removing their children from primary schools in the areas where academies were proposed. Applications for HCC for 2010 entry had risen by 15% compared with 2009.

·        The Council would be working in strong partnership with KS.

·        OfSTED and the DCSF would be monitoring the new academies more so than they would for community schools.

·        KS schools in Sweden attained on average 15% higher results than other schools there.

·        KS would be delivering the English National Curriculum, but with additional personalised learning opportunities.

·        The proposals had been modified in response to the consultation that had taken place, such as dropping the intention for the academies to have sixth forms.

·        Although the Council would be losing some control over the school’s affairs, it would maintain a close working relationship with KS, e.g. by having a Directorship of the Trust and two seats on each Academy Council.

·        Staff exchanges had taken place and there was some very positive feedback on this.  It was also the intention to introduce some pupil exchanges in the future.

·        Choice of schools in the west of the borough would not be lost, as currently parents had to choose between two schools which were not performing as well as others in the borough.

·        It was hoped that re-opening the schools as academies would be a catalyst for change.

·        The reason results in inner city schools had been improving so much was because they were receiving investment.  These proposals would offer HCC and Whitton that same opportunity and it was felt that both would soon be oversubscribed.

·        It was confirmed that officers were looking at the potential of a Catholic secondary school, but this required some very detailed discussions with the diocesan boards of education.

Steve Bollingbroke gave a presentation to the committee on the recent Appleyards-led consultation:

·        There had been a number of well attended meetings held in the community during the consultation.

·        A number of concerns about KS had been raised and addressed.

·        Some concerns about the level of parent representation on governing bodies had been raised.

·        KS and the Council did not know what any new buildings would look like at this time.  Any plans would need to go through the design, consultation and planning process.

·        There was not much demand for offering post-16 education at either school as most parents seemed to prefer the option of local tertiary colleges.  KS would therefore be building strong relationships with colleges in the area, while retaining the option of sixth forms in case they were wanted in the future.

·        The consultation showed strong support for the proposal to rename Whitton School as Twickenham Academy.

·        The Council would be receiving the full Appleyards consultation results in due course.

Following questions from members of the committee, the meeting was advised that:

·        The name “Twickenham Academy” was proposed by a Parent Governor at Whitton School, following suggestions from the pupils at the school that ‘re-branding’ would help to lose the stigma attached with the current name.

·        The Expressions of Interest had included plans for sixth forms in both proposed academies, but this was dropped following consultation which indicated that there was no clear demand for them among local parents.

·        For sixth forms to work effectively and efficiently, at least 200 students needed to attend.

·        Although the level of response from local linked and feeder primary schools was relatively low, this was not seen as a concern because officers would have expected any issues they had to be raised.

·        Academies were accountable to the DCSF in the same way as schools are accountable to the local authority.

·        The Council would have influence over academies once they were established, as a good working relationship with KS had already been built.

·        The Council was arguing for more money from the DCSF to cover set-up costs while ensuring plans were affordable.

Views

·        Councillor Evans – There would be a reduction in the level of choice, which is something that the Council had a responsibility to maintain.  KS were not the best option for HCC and another sponsor should be sought.

·        Councillor Marlow – Supported Councillor Evans’s views, particularly because progress was already being made at HCC.  HCC also did not require the high levels of investment which was needed at Whitton, which meant that it should be excluded from the academies programme.  Did not trust the Appleyards consultation because the arguments put forward at consultation meetings were very one-sided.

·        Councillor Elloy – Choice is important and should be maintained and in this instance, the same level of choice was being kept.  There were currently two underperforming schools, which would be transformed into successful academies.  If the Council was proposing these changes for two higher performing schools, then there would be more hesitation.

·        Councillor Jones – If both schools were kept as community schools, the rate of transformation would be much less rapid.  Unless something was done, the gap between HCC/Whitton and the rest of the borough’s schools would continue to widen.

·        Councillor Stanier – Had been reassured about the quality of the Appleyards consultation.  In an ideal world, measures such as these proposals would not be necessary, but this was a way in which to obtain large scale resources.  Good governance should be secured.

·        Councillor Hodgins – Did not feel that the results for sixth forms were clear-cut and was not convinced by the views expressed on the matter.

·        Councillor Khosa – It would be wrong not to take this opportunity to transform both schools.

·        Anne-Marie True – Shared the concerns expressed about the level of choice and sixth forms, although committing two schools to these plans when it was unclear whether it would work was not a good idea.

The following votes were carried:

1. For HCC: To progress  – 7 votes in favour; 4 against
2. For Whitton: To progress – 10 votes in favour; 1 abstention

RESOLVED that the Committee:

1.      Note the development of the proposed academies at both Hampton and Whitton.

2.      Recommend that the Cabinet agree to proceed to the next stage in the academies process for HCC and Whitton.

3.      Receive further reports on progress in due course.

[Notes:

The Cabinet Member for Children’s Services and Education was not present during the ‘views’ section of the discussion.

As the matter related to education matters, church and parent governor representatives also participated in a vote on the Committee’s resolution.]

The report updates progress on the development of the proposed academy at Shene.

Report of the Director of Children’s Services and Culture attached.

The Committee received the following representations, with views being summarised below:

Susan Kramer, MP for Richmond Park

·        Shene had been making good progress recently, but it now deserved some certainty over its future.

·        There must be decent and extensive consultation, which should not be carried out in a rushed manner.

·        Shene should be able to reach out to high-achieving local primary schools.

Following questions from members of the Committee, the meeting was advised that:

• Some felt the DCSF model for consultation was restrictive in its nature.
• There did not appear to be much confusion brought about by the change in sponsor amongst residents.
• The headteacher of Shene School was highly-regarded in the community and by local primary schools, and the school becoming an academy would help to improve its reputation.

Councillor Urquhart

·        The standards at Shene had been improving recently which was giving those living around the school a better level of choice.

·        The new academy would not be offering those who went there any new choice and there was a desire in the community to have a sixth form there.  This was not mentioned in the report.

·        The community should now be given assurances over what the new academy would offer, which would help attract people back.

Following questions from members of the Committee, the meeting was advised that:

• Councillor Urquhart was not against the idea of an academy, but felt that there should also be a sixth form on the site as well.
• A majority of the children attending were from inner London boroughs, however Richmond upon Thames was only getting an outer London borough allowance for each pupil.
• If schools in the area worked together, they could overcome some of the issues associated with introducing sixth forms. such as transport and needing a large enough cohort

David Triggs, Chief Executive Officer, Academies Enterprise Trust (AET) gave a presentation to the Committee, the points of which are summarised below:

·        AET would bring challenge and expertise, along with a proven track record of achievement, to a new Shene Academy.

·        AET had a very low level of exclusions and David Triggs had personally permanently excluded four students in the last 16 years.

·        It was the intention to have an “outstanding” academy in place which worked well with the local community.

·        The AET prospectus was available online and Mr Triggs stated that AET would not promise what it could not deliver.

·        High achievers would get the support they needed in order to do well.

·        Children’s wellbeing would be a priority along with their personalised learning.

·        Various development opportunities would be available to staff in order for them to do their best and to help retention.

·        The community would be engaged in order to ensure that the academy was meeting their needs.

·        The academy would have its own governing body, which included two teacher governors, two parent governors and six local “sponsor governors”.

·        Richmond’s admissions criteria, including linked primary schools, would be retained.

·        AET wanted to be held to account and encouraged this by making information available to people.

Following questions to Mr Triggs, the committee was advised that:

·        AET took its responsibility around gifted and talented children seriously and was always working towards offering lots of opportunities to stretch their abilities.

·        AET were willing to work with residents of the borough, who had consistently high expectations of the services provided.

·        A sixth form was currently not a reality because of there being low numbers of pupils on roll meaning that it would not be sustainable.

·        The idea of having a sixth form could be looked at again in the future as AET were open to the idea.

[The Committee agreed in accordance with Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule 17(a) that, as the business set out on the agenda had not been completed within 3 hours, the meeting should continue for up to a further 30 minutes.]

·        AET had developed its own strategies over time, which were proving helpful in improving standards.

·        The current headteacher at the school had been benefitting from AET’s experience.

·        AET also aimed to have a good level of communication with interested parties such as parents, the community, etc.  This was built upon by inviting people to view their schools and see what work was taking place.

·        There was a commitment from central government to expand academies, regardless of who would win the general election.

Views

·        Councillor Marlow – The issue of not having a sixth form should be raised with the Cabinet.

·        Councillor Treble – The sixth form issue could be raised in the consultation.

o       The Director stated that this was not possible owing to the now very tight timescale, although it could be covered in a separate report about post-16 education.

·        Councillor Elloy – The tertiary college was coming back under local authority control, so a strategic view should be taken then.

·        Councillor Hodgins – The issue of a sixth form should still be looked at in the ‘Feasibility’ stage.

There was a motion tabled and seconded to continue to the ‘Feasibility' stage with the proviso of including a question about a sixth form in the consultation.

The following was put to a vote of the committee:

·        To note the report and continue to the ‘Feasibility’ stage with no further amendments – 7 votes.

·        To continue to the ‘Feasibility’ stage with the proviso of a question relating to a sixth form in the consultation document – 2 votes.

·        Abstentions – 2.

RESOLVED that the Committee:

1. Note the development of the proposed academy at Shene.
2. Recommend that the Cabinet agree to proceed to the next stage in the academies process for Shene.
3. Receive further reports on progress in due course.

[Notes:

The Cabinet Member for Children’s Services and Education was not present during the ‘views’ section of the discussion.

As the matter related to education matters, church and parent governor representatives also participated in a vote on the Committee’s resolution.]