four oaks learning trust for excellence including coppice ... · 2 introduction this document...

1

Four Oaks Learning Trust For Excellence

Including

Coppice Primary School

Four Oaks Primary School

Hollyfield Primary School

Langley School

Little Sutton Primary School

Moor Hall Primary School

Whitehouse Common Primary School

Report on the Consultation

Full Governing Body Meeting

Monday 10th December 2012

2

INTRODUCTION This document summarises the feedback from the Four Oaks Learning Trust for Excellence public consultation exercise for Coppice Primary School, Four Oaks Primary School, Hollyfield Primary School, Langley School, Little Sutton Primary School, Moor Hall Primary School and Whitehouse Common Primary School. This consultation report was produced on behalf of the Governing Bodies by the Co-operative College who also facilitated the consultation. Copies of the consultation documents were published on the school websites and distributed widely to consultees including parents/carers, learners, staff, teacher associations and support staff trade unions, local Headteachers and Governors, the appropriate Local Authority, elected members in the catchment areas of the school and other stakeholders. A full list is available upon request to each consulting school. A series of consultation meetings with stakeholders took place as follows. On 12th November 2012 a consultation meeting was held at Little Sutton Primary School, for the staff - and their union representatives - from all seven schools, due to an Ofsted visit to Whitehouse Common Primary an additional meeting for staff who were unable to attend on 12th November was held on 26th November 2012. This was followed by a consultation meeting for members of the public and parents/carers of learners at all of the seven schools. In addition a series of consultation meetings were held for parents of Coppice Primary School, Four Oaks Primary School, Hollyfield Primary School, Langley School, Little Sutton Primary School, Moor Hall Primary School and Whitehouse Common Primary School in each school setting. These meetings were well publicised locally. The views of learners were sought via a series of separate meetings with the various Student Councils. These were supportive of the proposals. This document summarises the responses received for the consultation as a whole. Included within this report are a summary of the views and comments received from individuals. All responses will be made available to the Governing Bodies for examination when they consider this consultation. Individual responses are also available for examination by contacting the school.

CONTENTS

1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................... 3

2. Overview of the Consultation Feedback ................................................................. 4

3. Recommended Action ............................................................................................ 6

Appendix A – Summary of response forms

Appendix A1 – Summary from Coppice Primary School Appendix A2 – Summary from Four Oaks Primary School. Appendix A3 – Summary from Hollyfield PrimarySchool Appendix A4 – Summary from Langley School Appendix A5 – Summary from Little Sutton Primary School Appendix A6 – Summary from Moor Hall Primary School Appendix A7- Summary from Whitehouse Common Primary School Appendix B – Consultation documents

Appendix C – Notes from meetings

Appendix D – Letters of response - none received

Appendix E – Local Authority assurances letter Appendix F – Draft staffing protocol Appendix G - Unison / SCS National Agreement - attached separately as a pdf Appendix H - Basis for reconstitution of Governing Body

3

1. Executive Summary

A great deal of consultation has taken place with regard to these proposals. i) A summary information leaflet together with a covering letter and a response

questionnaire were issued to all the required consultees. Booklet One which contains a detailed explanation of the proposals, the rationale behind them, as well as information about the partners and the implications of becoming a foundation school, was made available to anyone who requested a copy. It was made clear in the summary information leaflet how to obtain copies of booklet one – and also Booklet two, which was a question and answer document, (hard copies of these documents were made available as well as electronic pdf copies placed on the seven consulting schools’ websites.

ii) The consultation was promoted widely and approximately 1,780 sets of

consultation documents were distributed when consultation officially opened on October 31st.

iii) A series of consultation meetings with stakeholders took place as follows. On 12th November 2012 a consultation meeting was held at Little Sutton Primary School, for the staff - and their union representatives - from all seven schools, an additional meeting was held on 26th November 2012 at Whitehouse Common Primary School for staff who were unable to attend the first meeting due to an Ofsted inspection. This was followed by a consultation meeting for members of the public and parents/carers of learners at Little Sutton Primary School. During the course of 12th November 2012 a consultation meeting was held for parents of Coppice Primary, Four Oaks Primary, Hollyfield Primary, Langley School, Moor Hall Primary and Whitehouse Common Primary School in each individual school setting. These meetings were well publicised locally

iv) Simultaneously with the public consultation, students and pupils in the schools

were consulted via their School Council these were supportive of the proposals from learners.

v) There were 92 response forms returned and the majority of these were supportive with only 2 responses being against the proposal and1 respondent supporting the change in category to foundation status but not acquiring a Trust.

vi) There was one written response to the consultation which can be found in

Appendix D. vii) A letter to obtain the required assurances has been sent to the LA (see

Appendix E). In addition a staffing protocol (see Appendix F) developed with Unions and Trade Associations and which has been adopted in other Co-operative Trusts has also been proposed. Similarly each governing body is also recommended to formally adopt the Unison / SCS National Agreement (Appendix G).

viii) The proposed partners remain committed to the proposed Trust and working

within the charitable aims of the Trust to raise standards and promote community cohesion. The Trust and the partners, as well as the mutual co-operative membership dimension, including the proposed Stakeholder Forum are likely to have a positive impact on the school and its community and further assist in the raising of standards.

4

2. Overview of the Consultation Feedback

In most consultation exercises responses (particularly written) tend to be made by those who have strong views and not by those who accept the proposals being put forward. In this case the overall response rate was similar to other such consultations The Co-operative College has conducted nationwide. The overall feedback to the consultation was strongly in favour of the proposals. The response forms returned showed that the great majority of respondents supported the proposals with only two respondents opposing them. Whilst the majority of responses are supportive there are a few concerns raised by individual respondents regarding the impact of the trust on current standards as well as workload for senior leadership. It is recommended that these concerns are addressed and reassurance offered. It is worthy of note that there are a number of very supportive comments mainly from parents and referring to the values and ethos of the proposal as well as the underpinning values and ethos that contribute to maintaining excellence. Unlike the vast majority of such exercises conducted by the Co-operative College there were very few adverse comments or concerns received by staff about employment matters. This was also true of the staff meetings (which were also well attended). It is clear that staff have been generally very reassured by their head teachers on these matters as well as the very positive experience of the growing network of co-operative schools elsewhere.

Nevertheless it will be important to ensure the necessary arrangements are put in place by the Local Authority and Governing Body to protect the rights of employees as outlined in the assurances letter (see Appendix E) and protocol (see Appendix F) the Unison SCS National Agreement referred to earlier. There were also several supportive comments and suggestions regarding future partners made in response to the consultation which it will be useful to take on board. As can be seen from the summary above all the statutory requirements were met or exceeded and it was clear how further information (including Booklets One and Two) could be obtained. This information was available well in advance of public meetings to allow people to consider the proposals and decide whether or not to attend meetings and ask questions. In our experience this is a fair summary and indicates that there are few concerns about the proposals. The individual governing bodies will continue to run their own school and each will be strengthened by the addition of two trust appointed governors. The Trust will be a mutual co-operative membership trust which will be democratically accountable to its members consisting of pupils, parents, staff, local organisations and others interested in supporting the schools. This membership base will strengthen the links with the local community and lead to greater involvement with the local community through the co-operative nature of the trust.

5

The three statutory requirements the Governing Body should satisfy itself that they have met are:

• to enhance ( and definitely not adversely) affect standards

• that the consultation exercise complied with regulations and guidance

• the views and comments from respondents have been properly considered. The overall response to the consultation was very positive with learners, parents/carers and staff who responded and/or attended consultation meetings/events being are generally very supportive of the proposals.

6

3. Recommended Action

It is clear that the view of those consulted overwhelmingly support the proposal for adopting the Trust. Parents/carers and staff are very supportive of the proposals. There appears to be an interest expressed by those who responded to become engaged in developing the trust and taking it forward with several helpful suggestions.

It is recommended that no alterations are made to the proposals. The Statutory Proposal is issued with a statutory period from noon on Friday 11th January 2013 to noon on Friday 8th February 2013. There is no need to hold additional consultation. It is also recommended that:

• each Governing Body communicate to its staff that the written assurances from the Local Authority regarding pay and conditions (including pension arrangements) for support staff and also regarding the application of existing policies around potential redundancy costs and related matters have been sought and that arrangements are in place to complete, on behalf of each Governing Body and agreement of a protocol on staffing matters with the West Midlands teacher associations and trade union representatives of both sets of school staff. Also that each GB also agrees to adopt for its support staff, the National Agreement negotiated between the Society of Co-operative Schools (SCS) and UNISON on pay and conditions matters. (Appended separately as a pdf document.)

• Each Governing Body formally confirm its reconstituted composition if it is to go ahead and become a foundation school with a trust as its legal foundation.

• That the name of the proposed trust as ‘The Four Oaks Learning Trust For Excellence’ be confirmed in the Statutory Proposal.

Appendix A – Summary of response forms A total of 92 questionnaires were received following approximately 1,780 consultation documents being sent to all parents, staff and governors of the schools as well as to a significant number of interested parties. These broke down as follows – 68 from parents; 17 from staff; 8 from Governors; 0 from “Others and 1 “unknown”.

There was one written response to the consultation which can be found at Appendix D together with the response from Hollyfield Primary to whom it was addressed.

In addition learners were consulted via their respective School Councils and the response to this process gave strong support for the proposals.

The number of responses for each question is given below. The totals may not always be the same as it was possible for respondents to indicate multiple answers to questions or to omit answering a question or questions.

Q1. How do you feel about the school changing their legal status and acquiring a Trust?

Parents/ Carers Staff Governors Other

Don't Know

I support the proposals 68 17 10 0 1 I am not sure and would like more information …(particularly on...) 5 0 0 0 0 I do not think the school should change category and acquire a Co-operative Trust because … 2 0 0 0 0 I support the change of category, but not acquiring a Co-operative Trust because … 1 0 0 0 0

Q2. How do you feel about the proposed partners in the Trust?


Don’t Know

Q2. These are the right partners 57 16 8 0 1 I am concerned about the school working with … because … 9 1 0 0 0 I think the school should also think about working with … 5 0 2 0 0

Q3. How do you feel about this vision?

Parents/Carers Staff Governors Other

Don’t Know

Q3. This is right for the school 66 16 10 0 1 I do not think … should be a priority in the vision because 1 0 0 0 0 I would like to see …Included in the school’s vision. 1 1 0 0 0

Q4. Are you happy with the Trust appointing a minority of governors?


Don’t Know

Q4. Yes – this sounds like a good idea 59 17 9 0 1

Yes, but I am concerned about… And I will want more information to be sure about the proposals. 5 0 0 0 0 No, I would prefer the Trust to appoint more Governors because… 2 0 0 0 0 No, I do not like this proposal because… 0 0 0 0 0

Appendix A 1 Coppice

A total of 9 questionnaires were received following over 334 consultation documents being sent to all parents/carers, staff and governors of the school as well as to a significant number of interested parties. These broke down as follows – 6 from parents; 0 from staff; 3 from ‘others’. In addition there were no written responses (see appendix D). Copies of these responses are available for governors’ perusal.

In addition all pupils were consulted via the School Council and the response was from the School Council was positive (see Appendix C).

The number of responses for each question is given below together with the comments received. The background of the respondent, where known, is also given.



Don't Know

I support the proposals 5 0 3 0 0 I am not sure and would like more information … 1 0 0 0 0 I do not think the school should change category and acquire a Trust because … 0 0 0 0 0 I support the change of category, but not acquiring a Trust because … 0 0 0 0 0

Comments received:

How the schools would cope with any potential litigation or legal challenges. How would this advice be funded?



Don’t Know


Comments received:

Hill West Primary School Birmingham Community Healthcare Trust



Don’t Know


Comments received:



Don’t Know


Yes, but I am concerned about… 0 0 0 0 0 No, I would prefer the Trust to appoint more Governors because… 0 0 1 0 0 No, I do not like this proposal because… 0 0 0 0 0 Comments received:

Any new Governors brought on board should have specific skills and experience to provide additional input and understanding around a successful Trust model.

What evidence I there for improved outcomes. Why is this different from the co-operation already undertaken by the Four Oaks Cluster group? What impact would there be on the LEA if the schools opt out?

Collaborative working and new opportunities that the Trust brings will inevitably take up more of the head teachers’ time. I would not want this to lessen the presence of the head teacher within school or compromise communication and relationships between the head teacher and frontline staff. I hope the new management structure engages frontline staff and has a positive and motivating influence on them.

It’s about the correct skills that each governor brings to balance overall board

Q5. Do you have any other comments, concerns or suggestions that we should think about before we publish formal proposals?

Comments received:

Appendix A 2 – Hollyfield

A total of 23 questionnaires were received following over 388 consultation documents being sent to all parents/carers, staff and governors of the school as well as to a significant number of interested parties. These broke down as follows – 16 from parents; 5 from staff; 2 from Governors, 0 from ‘others’ and 1 unknown. In addition there was one written response (see appendix D). Copies of these responses are available for governors’ perusal.





Don't Know


Comments received:

I would like more information on impact on children, costs to parents and employment changes to teachers (Parent)

I support the change of category but not acquiring a trust because other avenues could be explored (parent)



Don’t Know


Comments received:

I think the school should also think about working with Bishop Vesey and Sutton Coldfield Grammar school for girls (Parent)

I think the school should also think about working with local grammar schools, Birmingham based universities to leverage spend i.e. Aston (parent).

I think the school should also think about working with a secondary school/academy to help Y6-7 transition (parent)

I applauded the proposal and have high hopes that together, you can bring education to another higher level. Thank you! (parent)

I think the school should also think about working with New Hall (Governor)



Don’t Know


Comments received:

I think this is right for the school but would like more information (Parent)

I would like to see some deliverables (measurable) so successes can be quantified or remedial actions taken (parent).

I would like to see an emphasis on sport and PE included in the school’s vision (Parent)



Don’t Know


Yes, but I am concerned about… 3 0 0 0 0 No, I would prefer the Trust to appoint more Governors because… 0 0 0 0 0 No, I do not like this proposal because… 0 0 0 0 0

Comments received:

Yes this sounds like a good idea as long as decisions are transparent and parents are kept informed about changes and offered consultation

I am concerned about not knowing enough Governing systems (parent)

I am concerned about the process of appointment (parent)

Yes but I am concerned about not enough representation. Parents, teachers and community governors (3 in total) should be representing the interests of each school for complete view. (Parent)


Comments received:

I am looking forward to working closely with other schools as I feel it would benefit by teaching opportunities and the children learning. (staff)

How will this impact upon the children? Will the quality of teaching change and impact of changes upon teachers and supporting staff? What happens with regards to funding from Charity trust? Will parents be expected to increase financial contributions? Why will these changes be more beneficial than how things are now? (Parent)

My main concern is funding. My child is AD and I am worried funding won’t get allocated to Special Needs. (Parent)

I think this will be good for all the schools involved and the children for the future. (Parent)

Fully support the Cooperative Trust – good luck in this adventure (Staff and staff Governor)

I think this is a very exciting way forward for our school. I have every confidence in the decisions made by our head, Mrs Lewis. Being part of this trust can only be positive as all schools continue to share their outstanding practice with each other. (Staff)

I would like to know about the make-up of the Trust board of Governors, the election process from the various schools’ board of Governors. I would like to know more about how the individual school and the Trust plan their long term goals and how they deal with any conflicts, be they concerning finances or targets. I am in favour of the Trust as a positive way forward for Hollyfield. I would like a lot more detail, though, about how the Trust would be involved and what effects it would have on the school. (parent)

Vision needs to be backed up by specific performance measures. Heads of each school should have objectives linked to the delivery of Trust deliverables to ensure momentum and commitment to the Trust vision. In linking to universities, potential to draw on purchasing experience and increase leverage. (Parent)

I believe in the current education climate a change of status is inevitable. I would, however, be concerned that Hollyfield would offer more than it would receive as part of this partnership and I feel exploring a possible link with a secondary such as Fairfax would be more beneficial as the students would be more stable and enjoy a smoother transition. Proximity would also be ideal. I would be concerned about the ownership of the land as I wouldn’t like any residential development to restrict child development. (Parent)

Appendix ‘c’ – pupils’ responses:

Pupils were a bit worried at first as things might change but when Mrs Lewis finished talking to them they felt happier. They are looking forward to becoming a trust school, they think it sounds exciting. They are excited by the possibility of interschool competition. They like the idea of teachers from other schools coming to teach our lessons. They would love one big orchestra and choir as well as interschool sports day and interschool football matches.

Appendix A3 – Four Oaks

A total of 25 questionnaires were received following over 350 consultation documents being sent to all parents/carers, staff and governors of the school as well as to a significant number of interested parties. These broke down as follows – 17

from parents; 7 from staff 2 from ‘others’. In addition all pupils were consulted via the School Council and the response was from the School Council was positive (see Appendix C).



Parents/ Carers

Staff Governors Other Don't Know

I support the proposals 16 7 2 0

I am not sure and would like more information …

1 0 0 0 0

I do not think the school should change category and acquire a Trust because …

0 0 0 0 0

I support the change of category, but not acquiring a Trust because …

0 0 0 0 0

Comments received:

• Direct effect on Four Oaks specifically

• Cons (Parent)

I am not sure and would like comfort that this will not be too bureaucratic and will have

proper and effective leadership


Parents/ Carers

Staff Governors Other Don’t Know

Q2. These are the right partners 14 7 1 0 0

I am concerned about the school working with … because …

4 0 0 0 0

I think the school should also think about working with …

1 0 0 0 0

Comments received:

I am concerned about the school working with other schools because do they have exactly the

same aims/objects/vibe. (Parent)

I am concerned about the school working with Langley School because I have never heard of

them. (Parent)

I think the school should also think about working with Birmingham University and Aston

University (Parent)

I think the school should also think about working with Arthur Terry School. (Parent)

I think the school should also think about working with an F.E. College. (Parent)

I am concerned about the school working with other schools, because Four Oaks is an

excellent school. I do not want this to be dragged down. I do not know sufficient about the

other schools to be confident that this will not happen.

I am concerned about the school working with Rotary, although agree that strong private

sector partners are appropriate. I would like to also see local. I think the school should also

think about working with voluntary and community enterprise represented.


Parents/Carers Staff Governors Other Don’t Know

Q3. This is right for the school

16 7 2 0 0

I do not think … should be a priority in the vision because

0 0 0 0 0

I would like to see …Included in the school’s vision.

0 0 0 0 0

Comments received:

Improve outcomes for young people across the learning community. How? (Parent)

Retain our autonomy and independence whilst further developing long-term and sustainable

relationships

between our centres of learning. How and for what benefit? (Parent)

I would like to see support between schools. (Parent)


Parents/ Carers

Staff Governors Other Don’t Know

Q4. Yes – this sounds like a good idea

14 7 2 0 0

Yes, but I am concerned about… 0 0 0 0 0

No, I would prefer the Trust to appoint more Governors because…

2 0 0 0 0

No, I do not like this proposal because…

0 0 0 0 0

Comments received:

• This seems to be a solid proposal which benefits the children, parents and staff –

continuity, progression can continue in order to maintain excellence (Parent)

No, I would prefer the Trust to appoint more Governors because…

• maybe one governor to represent each school. (Parent)

• I believe that it requires more than two governors as it is such an important area, that

needs to be monitored closely. (Parent)

• because maybe one governor to represent each school. (Parent)

I have significant experience of trust organisations and they can be slow acting, political

organisations. This is my main concern, together with the risk of increased/wasted cost and

expense.


Comments received:

I believe the schools already work well together and so this can only improve current

relationships and development across the schools involved. (Parent)

My wife and I fully support the proposals on our understanding that:

1) The schools fundamentally remain the same, with no changes to staff terms and

conditions, and retaining their independence and identity

2) Joining the trust allows access to partners and funding otherwise unavailable to the

school

3) The move to a trust stops the school being forced into Academy status

4) The move to a Trust is at zero cost

5) We fully support the stated values of the Trust and that those values are in line with

Four Oaks Primary School, furthermore, I would welcome the chance to be involved,

if appropriate. (Parent)

I know that the schools involved share the commitment to provide outstanding educational

experiences for all the children. I trust the Head Teachers of all the schools to work together

to make things happen. (Parent)

I agree mostly especially the schools will have more say and power rather than the Local

Authority. I found working through Local Authority have too much protocol and slow down

any progress and decisions. (Parent)

Main concern is the impact this and other Trust/Academy arrangements will have for

children post primary. Appreciate that Arthur Terry already has Academy status and that the

Four Oaks Trust won’t have formal influence over their admission decisions but would like to

see the Trust working closely with Arthur Terry as in current cluster arrangement. (Parent)

This proposal has been developed over 2 years. It is challenging to understand enough about

it to vote on the basis of a leaflet and a one hour meeting. More information about the other

ways forward would put this proposal in context, and parents would feel more able to vote.

(Parent)

I am in total support of the school becoming a co-operative trust. I can see that it will only

benefit our pupils and strengthen links and training for our staff. If the proposals are agreed

to I would like to see a leaflet explaining to parents what has happened and what the impact

will be on their children, i.e. only positive outcomes. (Parent)

• Have all schools got some level of provision/excellence?

• Will the ‘better’ run schools lose momentum if assisting other schools attainment of

excellence?

• How do the children benefit/not benefit exactly? (\Parent)

This seems to be a solid proposal which benefits the children, parents and staff – continuity,

progression can continue in order to maintain excellence. (Staff)

Good for schools to work together plus keep their own identity. (Governor)

Appendix A4– Langley

A total of 2 questionnaires were received following over 150 consultation documents being sent to all parents/carers, staff and governors of the school as well as to a significant number of interested parties. These broke down as follows – 1 from parents; 1 from staff; 0 from ‘others’. In addition there were 0 written responses (see appendix D). Copies of these responses are available for governors’ perusal.





Don't Know


Comments received:



Don’t Know


Comments received:

We are the only special school. Would there be more inclusion for them?



Don’t Know


Comments received:

Inclusion to be at the heart of this



Don’t Know



Comments received:


Comments received:

Appendix A5 – Little Sutton

A total of 16 questionnaires were received following over 350 consultation documents being sent to all parents/carers, staff and governors of the school as well as to a significant number of interested parties. These broke down as follows – 12 from parents; 1 from staff; 3 from ‘others’. In addition there were (0) written responses (see appendix D). Copies of these responses are available for governors’ perusal.





Don't Know


Comments received:



Don’t Know


Comments received:

Would like to know which University though.(Parent)



Don’t Know


Comments received:



Don’t Know

Q4. Yes – this sounds like a good idea 12 1 3 0 0 Yes, but I am concerned about… 0 0 0 0 0 No, I would prefer the Trust to appoint more Governors because… 0 0 0 0 0 No, I do not like this proposal because… 0 0 0 0 0

Comments received:


Comments received:

To remain outward thinking and exploring any opportunities that may present themselves to ensure best outcomes for all. (Governor)

I think this will be a fantastic way forward for all the schools involved. (Staff)

I think it’s an exciting opportunity for the school. (Parent)

A fantastic opportunity for the local schools to come together in a forward thinking way. We should embrace the changes and look towards an even better future for our schools (Parent)

The leaflet should have pointed out that a change has to be made. I was not aware of this until the meeting and would have felt better about the proposal had I known that something had to be done. I was also concerned that it may divert funds away from the schools. I felt much happier following the meeting which explained things better than the leaflet. (Parent)

I attended the meeting at Little Sutton on 12/11/12. I was happy with the answers given regarding; staff, partners and their input, the benefits and the fact that the school will be able to negotiate better deals with contractors. Any concerns were addressed. I think it should be made clear to those who did not attend that the school can’t carry on as it is and needs to make a choice about what is the right way to go – but also point out the other options and why the school feels they would not suit. One of my concerns was that the partners would be given access to our data and we would be bombarded with literature. (Parent)

The overall priority should be to ensure the best, well rounded yet relevant, education for my children. As long as this is the priority and the scheme constantly challenges itself to prove that this is the over-riding priority, then I am fully supportive.

Appendix A6 – Moor Hall Primary School

A total of 13 questionnaires were received following over 211 consultation documents being sent to all parents/carers, staff and governors of the school as well as to a significant number of interested parties. These broke down as follows – 11 from parents; 1 from staff; 2 from ‘others’. In addition there were no written responses (see appendix D). Copies of these responses are available for governors’ perusal.




Don't Know


Comments received:

I agree that the proposal seems a good idea for the school. In all of the schools they are well run

and at a similar standard to Moor Hall, which I believe is important. Also, my views that trust status

is a better option than academy status as it would not be beneficial to the school to have to send

staff to other schools as and when required. This would be destructive to the pupils and the

timetable. The ability to make cost savings seek operation/joint purchasing is also as I understand it,

one of the key benefits of cooperation. It would be detrimental if Moor Hall did not join the trust

and all the other schools, just leaving Moor Hall on its own and in a weaker position. (Parent)

I do not think the school should change category and acquire property trust because it will lose its

own identity and it is too large group of those schools to be involved with. (Parent



Don’t Know

Q2. These are the right partners 7 1 1 0 0 I am concerned about the school working with … because … 2 0 0 0 0

I think the school should also think about working with … 0 0 0 0 0

Comments received:

I am in favour of the proposals but. I am concerned about the school working with Hollyfield primary because I wouldn't pass it as part of four oaks. I think the school should also think

about working with Mere Green school and Hill West school. (Parent)

I am concerned about the school working with partners in the trust because I feel decisions could be made, regarding the school, which the parents and the governors may not

necessarily agree with. It might be good for one school but not another. (Parent)



Don’t Know


Comments received:

The aims set out are all admirable and a great benefit to the pupils. My only query would be to what extent these can be achieved without going through the changed status? My understanding is that the schools already cooperate in various aspects. In other words, is the

change absolutely necessarily necessary to achieve the proposed objectives? (Parent)

Regarding number three also include staff development and needs to ensure the schools

have a solid all-encompassing approach to education. (governor)



Don’t Know

Q4. Yes – this sounds like a good idea 9 1 1 0 0 Yes, but I am concerned about… 1 0 0 0 0

No, I would prefer the Trust to appoint more Governors because… 0 0 0 0 0 No, I do not like this proposal because… 0 0 0 0 0

Comments received:

In favour but concerned that as Moor Hall is a small school……it is important that it's voice is

not lost and that it has the same level of voting power as all the other members. (Parent)

I am concerned about how changes will bring to the running of Moor Hall. (Parent)


Comments received:

As the governing body will become the employer of staff it will also become liable for any claim brought in an employment tribunal, for example for discrimination or equal pay. The recent Birmingham City Council versus Abdullah case illustrates the potential significant financial consequences of this. My understanding is that there will be some sort of arrangement with the local authority that they will cover certain costs provided their advice is followed. It is important that the governors ensure that they are not left open to Potential compensation or legal costs by ensuring we have adequate insurance to cover any shortfall

that would not be payable by this local authority. (Parent)

I think this is a good idea although I am buying into this with limited knowledge. Since Moor Hall is a small school I am sure there is benefit from joining a larger organisation as long as this doesn't take away what is unique to Moor Hall, that it is a close community of children, parents and staff. It is also not clear who the charitable trust will be and how willing the proposed partners will be to support the trust. From a university perspective, why would they be willing to support this learning trust instead of another learning trust? The geographical area that a university typically serves is a lot larger than Four Oaks so I'm not sure if you will get commitment from an institution as large as a university. How much does the success of

this learning just depend on gaining these partners? (Parent)

I hope that this move will not affect Moor Hall’s strong identity as a high achieving, small and

friendly school. (Parent)

Consider the schools record over the past years, and its good performance in the league table, and its achievements outside in sports athletics netball, football. Would all this change

in the future with more personnel involved with its running be a good thing? (Parent)

I think we should combine Moor Hall with another school or schools, sell the site for housing redevelopments, and put the money into the Four Oaks Learning Trust of Excellence.

(Parent)

I would like it written into the trust constitution that schools can also recommend trust

governors from their school governing body. (governor)

I am in favour of this proposal. I am sure this will be a pattern followed by the authority in years to come so it seems sensible for the Trust to comprise of local schools as they have shared values rather than have trust status thrust upon them and be told who they will be in

partnership with. (Parent)

I am in favour the change as the role of the TA has not changed and I do expect to work

longer hours with less pay, also there are no changes to our pensions. (staff)

Appendix A7 – Whitehouse Common Primary School

A total of 13 questionnaires were received following over 470 consultation documents being sent to all parents/carers, staff and governors of the school as well as to a significant number of interested parties. These broke down as follows – 11 from parents; 2 from staff; 0 from ‘others’. There were no written responses. Copies of these responses are available for governors’ perusal.





Don't Know


Comments received:



Don’t Know


Comments received:

“If appropriate: Sutton Municipal Charities, Fairfax School and Sutton Coldfield College”

“Maney Hill”



Don’t Know


Comments received:



Don’t Know



Comments received:

“Full representation for the school and maintenance of focus on local issues”.


Comments received:

“Excellent concept, fully support the initiative. Only concern is the maintenance of the excellent work already supported by the Governors”.

“Think perhaps some other parent meetings may be good for those unable to attend on Monday’s and perhaps another parent meeting to discuss results of questionnaire”

“As long as the L.A. continues to deal with school admissions I have no concerns”

“Should you require any Human Resource advice, please do not hesitate to contact me (Business card attached)”.

“It is an excellent opportunity for WHCPS who work with local outstanding schools on its journey to becoming one itself”.

“There is no better foundation to learning than ‘good’ and ‘outstanding’ teaching. By combining, expertise teaching will surely improve which can only be beneficial for the lives of Sutton Coldfield’s children”.

“I think this is the right thing for WCPS to do. The Schools within the trust will have much more control than if we convert to academy status”.

Appendix B – Consultation documents

See Booklets One and Two (attached) and Questionnaire (attached)

Appendix C – Notes from meetings

Hollyfield Primary School

Present - 10 parents

Q - If senior management change how easy is it for the school to leave the Trust?

A – For any school to leave the FOLTE there would be a formal consultation process. This is basically a

reversal of the ' start up' process. Commitment to the cooperative values could feature as an

interview question for any new senior leader appointed to a school.

Q - Why Four Oaks rather than Sutton Coldfield?

A - There are a significant number of schools in Sutton Coldfield that will not be part of the group so a

Sutton Coldfield name would not have been appropriate. Four Oaks schools have historically worked

well together. They have established an excellent reputation for collaborative work. The name

demonstrates the strength of the existing group. Please make suggestions if you would like to

propose a different name.

Q - What is the main drive for the move?

A- Collaborative work enables us to increase our capacity and build on expertise. There is an option

for us to make appointments to the trust to enhance our work further and increase our capacity for

improvement and widening opportunities for children. With the changing educational landscape

there is not an option to remain static.

Q - Why are you wanting a university partner?

A -This has worked successfully with other trusts, for example in Burton. Universities have large

resource banks and could undertake research across our schools as well as support us with staff

training.

Q- Can you disagree with the trust?

A - An individual school can opt out of undertaking a joint activity. The trust board does not hold any

power above individual governing bodies. Governing bodies retain their autonomy in decision making

for each school. The schools governing body makes the day to day running decisions for the schools,

not the FOLTE board.

Schools have to abide by the principles of the cooperative trust. The trust could propose that a school

or partner left the trust if they did not continue to uphold the principles of the cooperative

movement.

Q- How are you determining that this is successful? What evidence is there that trust partnerships

work?

A -Lots of examples were given from the trust in Burton. This included purchasing, staff training,

events for children and the sharing of expertise between the schools.

Q -How do you manage business competition and make sure that each member part is

contributing equally when there is a climate of competition for pupil places, for example?

A- We are already working collaboratively. The value of established relationships and using expertise

makes a difference. There is a responsibility for all schools and partners, under the terms of the trust,

to collaborate as equal members.

Q- I chose Hollyfield for my child because the school was special. Can this change as a result of the

cooperative?

A- All staff will remain in the individual schools. A child entering the school is unlikely to notice any

significant differences once the status has been changed. Any cross school work will be on a

supportive level. Children in classes at individual schools will not be affected.

Q - Who would employ people to work across schools?

A - The board of the FOLTE. Staff can be appointed to individual schools to work across the Trust as

well.

Q - What are the insurance implications?

A - There are no insurance implications as long as the school continues to undertake LA insurance

schemes. Or insurance at the same level with an alternative provider.

Q - Is this a removal from the LA?

A- The schools will become Foundation LA schools. The staff will be employed by the Governing

bodies of individual schools. Terms and conditions remain the same. It is important for all of us that

staff remain working under the same conditions. There would be no additional costs for staffing.

There would be no changes to budget share.

Q- What would stop the council from cutting budgets to schools who have become trust schools?

A- We are not penalised for being a trust as we are still working as an authority maintained school.

Ultimately school funding could change and go directly to all schools next year. The only time

changes could be made is if we became an academy trust.

Q- What happens with the building and infrastructure?

A- The Local Authority still has a responsibility to provide an education for the children in the area if

we are a maintained school. It doesn't change. The land is transferred automatically to be held in

trust. There is legal work that is involved in this transfer and this would have some cost implications

in terms of set up.

The LA has a legal obligation to provide education for the children in our area. If the school burns

down, for example, insurances would apply in the same way as it does presently.

Whitehouse Common

Present - 3 parents plus chair of governors

Q- Will the funding be affected?

A- Funding comes down to the schools exactly as it does now. Once the Trust is successful in

acquiring Charitable status then the doors open to other sources of funding.

Q- Why are some Four Oaks schools in and others out?

A- Two schools are proposing to join the Arthur Terry Academy Alliance. This means that they are not

able to join the FOLTE as they will not be maintained schools. We still want to work with these

schools in a different way. This is a natural next step for us.

Q- If we already do this then why are we wishing to become a trust?

A – The proposed trust allows us to formalise our relationships in a collaborative agreement. This is a

future proofed model for education.

Q- Can the trust make decisions that override the decision of the governing body?

A - No. The decisions from the trust only impact across schools. They are overarching decisions and

the board has no powers on an individual school basis.

Q- If the trust goes ahead can we set out own admissions policy?

A - Technically we can but it is sensible to adhere to the LA policy. It would be complicated to change

this but we do become our own admissions authority.

Four Oaks Primary School

14 present

Q- Why aren't all of the local schools in this together?

A- Hill West and Mere Green are proposing to move to the Arthur Terry Academy Alliance. We don't

wish to move to an Academy as we don't feel that this in the best interests of the children at our

schools at the present time.

Q-Did the decision of Hill West and Mere Green move the process further?

A- No. We have been looking at this option for the past two years.

Q- What are the educational benefits for the children?

A- The strength lies with working with partners. There will be a holistic approach to the schools.

There are many additional educational things that the children can do. University partners can bring

in research and development. The teachers will remain employed at the schools but will go in to

observe good practice in other settings. With locally based training we can improve the quality of

teaching even further.

Q - Do the two schools who are linked to Arthur terry have an admission priority for their children

to attend Arthur Terry?

A -No. We have received assurances that the school will remain under the LA admissions criteria. We

will work with the Arthur Terry Academy Alliance to ensure that there is an effective transition to

Arthur Terry performing Arts Academy.

Q- Why do we need to do all of this?

A- It is possible that there will not be community schools in the future. The LA is shrinking massively

and may not exist in the future. (see earlier responses)

Q - How do you get round the issue of the governing body employing the staff?

At the moment Local Authority employs the staff. The schools governing body will employ staff

instead in trust. You will see no difference as long as you take the advice of HR.

Q - Will the consultation report be made public?

Yes. Once it has been sent to governors. Each individual school's responses will be highlighted. These

will be published on the schools websites.

Q - What alternatives are there?

We can be individual trusts as opposed to cooperative trusts. Schools could become academies.

Q - How long has the Burton Cooperative Trust been working. Can we see feedback from this?

1 year. There is no official feedback yet however I can send information out showing some of the

benefits that have taken place.

Q - Why wouldn't a school want to become an academy?

A – Not great for the staff. Money comes from the government. You can wind up paying more for

services. It is a competitive model and less about sharing good practice. We are wanting increased

levels of collaboration.

Q- Would the staff support this?

They would be concerned about becoming an academy. A consultation will take place with their

unions to ensure that any anxieties they have can be addressed.

Q- There will be 17 members of the trust board. Is this different to the forum?

Cooperative is a membership organisation. On the forum there will be a democratic election to the

board for a representative. This will meet three times a year. The heads will have sub groups where

they will meet to look at aspects of the plan more regularly.

Q - How can the board work when there are so many members?

A – Trust boards do work effectively with this amount of members. However, I would not suggest

that it grows to exceed any more than ten schools as with partners the board could become too

large.

Q- What is the bad thing about the trust?

Probably more meetings and additional emails. The schools are used to working in this way at

present and the difference shouldn’t be too marked. We cannot identify any other problems.

Q – Could the land be taken away from the schools?

Land cannot change for a primary school. There has to be a certain amount of land to be able to

provide an education for the number of children at the site.

Coppice/ Langley

15 present including 3 from Four Oaks

Q - At what point will our children feel the difference?

A - As a group of 7 schools we have been working together for quite some time. The impact for the

children is already evident in terms of opportunities to work together but also in terms of

improvements made to classroom provision. This is in part protecting what we have got.

Q- (Nationally), are the member schools a reasonable mix or mainly primary?

A -Presently mainly primary. The academy route can be seen as beneficial to large secondary schools.

Q - Langley is federated with Beaufort school. How will this affect the schools?

A - Langley can be a foundation school federated with another Local Authority school. So there will

not be any problems.

Q. At the year end there is a carry over figure. Can this be clawed back to the trust (rather than go

the LA)?

A - Any money that comes through the trust arrangement we should keep separate. There are strict

financial regulations in place. Once we hit £5k we can apply to become a charitable trust. School

money cannot be transferred to the ‘trust’ pot. Any external money should be kept in a special pot.

Q - Are we responsible for the fabric of the lands if the school burns down?

A - Land and assets stay the same. Local Authority responsibility is to provide a venue for education

of the children. Schools will probably remain insured through the Local Authority.

Q - As employers of the staff there is an additional responsibility for this? Who would run the

pension fund?

A - It all stays the same. Terms and conditions remain the same as long as you continue to use HR

and legal support and follow their guidance.

If we were an academy this would be a very different scenario.

Q - What is the cost of doing this and how is it shared out? I am concerned that senior

management’s work can be made more onerous.

A -Already have systems in place. Sharing ICT technicians and bursars are in place. One person can

look at an issue over the group of schools, so bureaucracy is reduced. Between us as heads we are

able to give a tremendous amount of support to schools. You don't feel as isolated as you would

without this network.

Q - Are we opting out of the Four Oaks Cluster group?

No. It was set up for the children so elements will remain. Transition, opportunities within the

community and the important work we undertake in this community to provide opportunities for the

children will continue to develop.

Q - If throughout the consultation a school pulls out then what will happen?

A - The governors can withdraw. They do not have to continue with the process.

Schools do not have to go forward. The trust may want to have a conversation with a school if they

are under performing. Partners and schools could be asked to leave. At all times any significant

changes would require a consultation based approach.

Q -What would have to happen if a partner dropped out?

There is only a need for one partner. The cooperative is a partner.

Q- Is there a formalised agreement for the partners?

Yes. They have to commit to the cooperative values.

Q - Coppice and Langley share the land. What if one school doesn't go forwards?

This could be complicated so Solicitors would have to look at the situation. You can agree to have the

land and assets retained with the LA.

Q -How would the trust manage the money?

Additional money would be managed by the trust. There will be transparency of accounting. The

trust board will decide how to allocate funding in a way that it can be best used to meet the aims of

the cooperative.

Q - Are there conditions laid down, checks and balances for the trust?

A – Not able to use school budget money. The trust is a limited company. Accounts have to be

published and only audited when they reach a certain level.

Q - How do the teachers feel?

The staff feel this as a preferred option. They are not leaving the authority.

Q - This sounds like strategic health authorities. What are the downsides?

Work load can be a downside. There are more meetings. There are structural differences with the

SHA.

Q – How does finance work?

We can bid for pots of money as a charitable trust. The trust applies and the overarching trust can

apply for various pots of money. There is no blending of money with SBS. The trust money has to be

seen as being separate.

Q - Is OFSTED interested in how the trust operates?

There is reference in Ofsted reports of the positive impact of schools becoming co-operative Trust

schools, suggest you taking a look on the co-operative college website for detailed examples.

Moor Hall Primary School

Present – 8 parents

Q – If the Governing Body is the employer then if there is a tribunal who is liable?

A – You would continue to utilise HR support, therefore provided the advice is followed and your

usual insurances are in place you will be in no different situation to being a community school. It is

proposed that you remain with the LA HR services until there is a good reason to do anything else.

Q – Are there additional liabilities (ref booklet 2) and additional costs?

A – Costs for SLA’s should remain the same with the LA. It is important to review arrangements but

provided you follow advice and continue to engage with HR, H&S advice etc. there is no difference.

Q – As one of the smallest schools in the FOLTE, is there and equal number of members from each

school? Will there be three times more members from one school and therefore a bias?

A – Yes all schools have their head and chair on the board, for the forum it would be an idea to rotate

the representative to ensure equal opportunity for each schools membership groups to take part at

board level.

Q – Have the Governors of Moor Hall School looked at different options?

A – The main option we would look at was the academy route. The level of responsibility on the

school would have been very high for little financial reward. The school is very keen to work in

collaboration and wants to retain its identity. The cooperative model allows for this.

Q – What % of the Trust will be funded by the school budget? Where would money come from to

fund the FOLTE?

A- No money from school budget can be used to run the Trust, there is no percentage of budgets

allocated and to do so would contravene financial regulations. The schools can purchase services e.g.

a member of staff employed by the Trust to work across the schools.

Q- Can you explain the reconstitution of the Governing Body?

A – The governing body will be reconstituted following the national guidance, there will continue to

be the same ratio of parent and staff governors, the community governor requirement has been

removed, therefore you may wish to ask existing community governors to take the role of the Trust

governor.

Little Sutton Primary School

Staff and parents meeting plus union representatives from NUT, NASUWT, NAHT and GMB.

NAHT - This is a positive move and the NAHT recommends this move rather than a forced academy

route.

NUT - we do not believe that there is a need for trust schools.

NASUWT has a national agreement to promote cooperative work. This is a different way to academy

route, which they are opposed to. It will embed schools much more firmly locally. This union has

been trying to work across the schools in Birmingham to become a cooperative.

Q- Can this consultation be extended?

A- If in feedback schools wanted more time then this could be considered.

Q- The proposed sponsors. Can you explain how these organisations can be involved? A concern is

if an individual organisation takes over.

A- Partners do not take over. We are looking at what opportunities there are to work collaboratively.

(benefits of partner work outlined earlier).

Q – You haven’t referred to the Bradford agreement.

There are, in some places, circumstances where local agreements are taken with unions.

Q - Would employment go through the TUPE process?

A - No

NUT recommends that TUPE takes place. This will guarantee terms and conditions on the point of

transfer.

Response - this is not a TUPE transfer. An agreement is in place and staff transfer across as we are a

maintained school, in the trust of the LA.

Q - What is the cost of becoming a trust?

There are set up costs. There are no other costs involved in the set up process. Money can't be

transferred into the trust pot.

Evening meeting at Little Sutton for parents and community members.

Concern expressed about the size of the trust board comprising of over 20 people.

Q. Will this take decision making away from the school?

The school improvement plans etc. will remain with the schools. The trust will look at the overarching

activities and pieces of work. This is not about the day to day running of the schools.

Q. Is each school's funding ring fenced?

Yes.

Q - How much does the trust cost to run?

Schools can make decisions about shared services and joint events but the trust doesn't have to cost

anything.

Q. How will my 4 year old benefit from this?

There won't be noticeable changes initially. In the past 12 months at Burton there have been

festivals, celebration events. Universities have come in to the schools and undertaken activities with

the children. The children like the idea of going to the college and enjoy working with each other.

Q - Why can't schools carry on as they remain now?

A - Our schools do not want to become academies. Schools who do not group are in danger of

becoming isolated.

Q - What roles do the partners have?

A - The starting point is the development plan. What could the partner offer to the plan? (see earlier

responses regarding partner work). Rotary can offer an international network of business expertise.

They are always looking to impact positively on their community.

Q - Several of the schools have nurseries. How will this impact upon them?

The land is likely to remain with the LA, so there will be little change. They could become part of the

trust as a partner. Other community organisations can contribute at the forum level.

Q - How does the L A fit in to this plan? What is their decision making power? Would school

expansion lie in the scope of the trust?

No. This lies within the local authority. The schools remain within the LA banner. LA is looking into

how this could be expanded as it retains their role.

Appendix D – Letters of response

Response: Mr A Bird Head Teacher Fairfax School Fairfax Road Sutton Coldfield B75 7JT 22 November 2012 Dear Andy Thank you for your response to the consultation on the proposed Four Oaks Learning Trust for Excellence. Having discussed your letter at a recent meeting of Head Teachers, we would like to clarify the situation relating to some of the points raised in the letter. With regard to your concern that the secondary phase had been overlooked in the Trust Partnership, indeed contrary to this, we will be including a number of secondary schools through our proposed partner, the well established King Edward VI Foundation. This group of schools have invaluable experience to offer in terms of how a group of schools can successfully work together as a Foundation. As our documentation outlines, we will be continuing with the strong links that already exist with our feeder secondary schools which we really value. The purpose of new partners is that they will bring added value to the Cooperative Trust. The schools within the proposed trust who have had little contact with Fairfax School in the past, are really pleased to hear you wish to build links with them. We are sorry that you were unable to attend the consultation meeting where the purpose and details of the proposed trust were explained. However, we would be happy to arrange a meeting with you to explain the vision, how we see partnerships and links working and hopefully reassure you of our core purpose to work together to achieve the best possible opportunities for our children and the community we serve.

Appendix E – Local Authority assurances letter

Date Dear xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Assurances from the Local Authority regarding pension arrangements, costs of early retirement and redundancies and related matters. I write as Chair of the Governing Body of the xxxxxxxxx school. You will be aware that we are currently consulting on changing our school category from community to foundation and at the same time acquiring a charitable trust. The proposed change will mean that the governing body becomes the employing body on implementation day [1stSeptember 2012]. This process is not TUPE, but somewhat similar and taking place under The School Organisation (Prescribed Alterations to Maintained Schools) (England) Regulations 2007) which provides for all rights, powers, duties and liabilities to transfer existing staff from the Local Authority to the Governing Body of the school. Employees will be employed by the school’s Governing Body instead of the Local Authority. The Governing Body will continue to recognise the same teachers’ associations and trade unions. The existing rights of teachers will be fully protected if the school acquires a Trust as the Governing Body will still be bound by the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document. The Governing Body will set terms and conditions for its own associate (support) staff. However, terms and conditions will be safeguarded as per the prescribed regulations for existing staff and our associate (support staff) will maintain the same employment rights as Local Authority employees. However, there are now a number of matters we require written assurances on from the Local Authority. These are as follows: A). Liabilities affecting the governing body in respect of employment matters The governing body may, as employer, in some circumstances have to appear at an Employment Tribunal to defend the school, if, for example, candidates for a post at the school complain that a governing body's decision or procedure discriminated against them, or if an employee complains that they had been dismissed unfairly. We would like an assurance in writing that the local authority recognises that in cases of dismissal, it has to pay any compensation or legal costs awarded by an Employment Tribunal unless it can show that it has good reason to charge the school's delegated budget (for example, if the local authority had previously advised the governing body that an Employment Tribunal was likely to decide a dismissal was unfair).

B). Responsibility for the cost of premature retirements and compensation for redundancy. The governing body, as the employer, can grant premature retirement to the staff for reasons of redundancy, or can terminate a member of staff's employment in the interest of the efficient discharge of their employer function. The governing body also decides on the level of compensation to grant any member of staff they may make redundant. We would like an assurance in writing that the local authority recognises that it, as the “compensating authority” has to pay “mandatory compensation” towards a teacher’s annual pension and retirement lump sum if they are granted premature retirement by the governing body. We do recognise that the local authority has the power to take the costs of premature retirement from a school’s delegated budget if the authority has not agreed to the premature retirement. Similarly, the authority is empowered to take the costs of discretionary compensation for redundancy from a school’s delegated budget if they have good reason to do so (an example of this might be if the local authority thought the discretionary payment in a particular case was too high in relation to its own policy). C).Pensions of associate (support) staff. Associate (support) staff at foundation schools are allowed to continue to be in the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS), if the local authority, with the consent of the school governing body, has by a statutory resolution specified them to be eligible to belong to the scheme. Otherwise, the associate (support staff) will no longer be members of the LGPS and it will be for them and the school governing body to make alternative pension arrangements. In our case, the governing body has resolved to seek to ensure continuity of pension arrangements for associate (support staff) through the local authority and the LGPS. We are now formally seeking written assurances that

i) The local authority will agree the statutory resolution specifying that associate

(support) staff currently in the LGPS will continue to be eligible to belong to

the scheme. We would ask for a copy of the actual resolution and the

minute of the meeting where it was agreed.

ii) The local authority will also agree to associate (support) staff currently not in

the LGPS, continue to have the right to join it going forward and that a

similar offer be made to new associate (support) staff joining the school in

the future.

Yours sincerely, (Chair of Governors)

Appendix F – Draft staffing protocol

A Protocol on Employees’ Terms and Conditions and Union Relations

1. The school will continue to adhere to the national and local conditions of service

currently in place for its existing employees and will continue to employ new staff on these terms. All employees’ continuity of service will continue, and contracts will only change in that the employer will become the Governing Body. Other contractual details will remain the same.

2. Recognition of the same trade unions and professional associations will continue,

and the school will engage with the Unions in the same way in the future, in line with existing local agreements.

3. The School believes that trade unions help ensure good employee relations, will

encourage employees to become union members and will inform new appointees accordingly. The School will, on request, provide the trade unions with names and work locations of new appointees.

4. The relevant unions are the teacher unions (ASCL, ATL, NAHT, NASUWT, NUT and

VOICE) and the unions representing support and other professional school staff (GMB, UNISON and Unite).

5. Consultation on internal procedural matters and working and organisational

arrangements will be dealt with in the first instance by discussions with union representatives within the school, who may ask for support from their local or regional officers if they think this is necessary.

6. If the school in the future considers varying existing terms and conditions, or not

adopting variations agreed through the mechanism for negotiating between the Local Authority and its employees, it will notify the local authority representatives of the recognised unions, and will negotiate with them, through a forum consisting of representatives of the school and internal and/or external representatives of each of the recognised unions. In the unlikely event that there is a breakdown in negotiations on terms and conditions, the matter may be referred to the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) in order to seek resolution of the issue. Either party may determine that a matter is referred to ACAS for conciliation. Both parties may subsequently agree, where necessary, that a matter is referred to ACAS for arbitration. Whilst these procedures are being followed the School will honour the status quo ante.

7. The school will write to all employees at the date of transfer to inform them that their

new employer is now the Governing Body and that their conditions of employment will not change.

Appendix H - Basis for Reconstituting the Governing Body.

C.1 The current situation of appointing Parent, Co-opted, Local Authority and Staff

Governors will be maintained. However the Governing Body will now have a minority

of governors appointed by the Trust.

C.2 As the date that this trust would legally be formed from is after 1 September 2012, the

new regulations – the School Governance (Constitution) (England) Regulations 2012

will need to be adhered to. These regulations state that the governing body of every

maintained school must be constituted in accordance with this regulation.

The total membership of the governing body of a maintained school must be no fewer

than seven governors.

The governing body of a maintained school must include the following:

a) At least two parent governors

b) The headteacher unless they resign the office of governor

c) One staff governor; and

d) One local authority governor

The governing body may in addition appoint such number of co-opted governors as

they consider necessary provided that the requirements in regulation 14 are met in

respect of governing bodies of foundation and voluntary schools. This states that: ‘the

governing body of a foundation school which is not a qualifying foundation school

must also include at least 2 (but no more than 45% of the total) foundation

governors.’

The total number of co-opted governors who are also eligible to be elected as staff

governors under Schedule 2, when counted with the staff governor and the

headteacher, must not exceed one third of the total membership of the governing

body.

C.3 The Governing Body will undergo some minimal changes in order to comply with the

appropriate legislation.

four oaks learning trust for excellence including coppice ... · 2 introduction this document...

Documents