NEWHAM SCHOOLS COMMUNITY TRUST

Transcription

1 NEWHAM SCHOOLS COMMUNITY TRUST THE PROPOSED PARTNERSHIP OF LISTER, ROKEBY AND SARAH BONNELL SCHOOLS BRIEFING FOR GOVERNORS February 4 th 2015 A. STRATEGY A1. Why is the partnership of Lister, Rokeby and Sarah Bonnell being proposed? The three Headteachers are individually and collectively committed to their schools achieving an Ofsted judgement of Outstanding within two years. In an increasingly challenging educational landscape the Headteachers believe that this can only be achieved through close partnership working with other strong schools. These are three very good schools that are each continuing to improve. The schools have similar and complementary strengths that will enable effective and impactful partnership working. The Headteachers also share a commitment to comprehensive, inclusive and locally accountable schools that support the achievement of all young people in Newham. Their admissions policies are non-selective and based on where students live. The proposed partnership is also a response firstly, to a Local Authority with reducing capacity and capability to support schools that are performing well and secondly, an evolving Newham schools landscape with a blend of schools, academies and free schools educating children and young people. A2. What will the benefits of the partnership be for the schools? The Headteachers have identified four key areas of benefit for their schools. 1. Strengthened, continuing school improvement: the sharing and analysis of data to identify areas of both excellent and weaker performance to guide school improvement planning; creating networks of staff and senior leaders to share and develop best practice; development of internal quality assurance and peer review programmes to benchmark and verify school performance and; coordinated external verification of school performance. 2. Enhanced staff development, retention and recruitment: development of bespoke staff CPD programmes more closely aligned to support school improvement; tailored senior, middle and subject leadership development programmes to enable school improvement and enhance succession planning; subject and specialism based curriculum, teaching and learning programmes; NCST Governor Briefing Page 1 of 10

2 better retention and recruitment of staff as a larger single employer offering attractive career opportunities. 3. Richer teaching, curriculum and extending learning: subject-lead networks to share good practice and respond to curriculum changes; increased viability of offering specialist subjects to students; development of specialist programmes for particular groups of students; wider extra-curricular programmes through cost-effective joint commissioning; enhanced support and care for students with particular needs; enhanced vocational offer across three schools. 4. Greater collective and individual protection: greater ability to shape the local and national landscape for the benefit of students, staff and other schools; protection of individual school ethos and values within strong partnership; joint commissioning and procurement of services and resources to secure cost-efficiencies; sustain comprehensive and inclusive education. A3. Why does the partnership need to be a multi academy trust? The Headteachers believe that school partnership can only be truly effective when collective accountability, responsibility and sustainability is locked into the partnership structure. Otherwise there is risk that either changes of personnel reduce a school s commitment to partnership or, short-term school priorities distract Headteachers and staff from partnership working, both resulting in the partnership becoming less effective. Government policy is such that the multi academy trust is really the only viable, sustainable partnership structure open to schools, especially with the associated diminishing role of Local Authorities in supporting partnership working between schools. Schools that are under-performing are required to become sponsored academies. The risk is that a drop in results or a negative inspection forces a school become a sponsored academy as part of a large academy chain. With nearly 70% of secondary schools having become academies, it also seems increasingly likely that schools will be required to become academies. Other partnership models such as Schools Companies or Cooperative Trusts do not provide any greater protection against this risk than continuing as a local authority maintained school. By establishing its own multi academy trust based on strong partnership working the schools will be more able to sustain improvement and therefore less vulnerable to external intervention. B. GOVERNANCE B1. What is a multi academy trust? The multi academy trust is the legal entity that enters into Funding Agreements with the Secretary of State for Education. The Funding Agreements set out the Trust s responsibilities and accountabilities for the effective running of member academies. A multi academy trust operates more than one academy whereas an academy trust would operate just one academy. The MAT is a Company Limited by Guarantee, registered at Companies House with a company number. The MAT is established by Members who are, in effect, the shareholders of the company. The Members appoint and hold to account a Board of Directors/Trustees. As the MAT is a Company Limited by Guarantee, it must comply with company law and because it has charitable exemption, the MAT must also comply with charity law. As a Company Limited by Guarantee the MAT can only carry forward any financial surpluses from its annual activities: it cannot pay out dividends (unlike a Company Limited by Shareholding). The MAT is run in compliance with its Articles of Association, which are a model version developed by the Department of Education. These Articles include the MAT s charitable objects which are to further for pubic benefit education by establishing, maintaining, carrying on. Managing and NCST Governor Briefing Page 2 of 10

3 developing schools offering a broad and balanced curriculum. Only the Members have the right to change the Articles and the changes are subject to company and charity law. Prior to the MAT being established the DfE will need to approve the appointment of the Members and thereafter any changes of Members must be notified to the Secretary of State. B2. How is the multi academy trust accountable? The MAT Members and Directors are ultimately accountable to the Secretary of State for Education through the Funding Agreements. The Secretary of State has the right to terminate these agreements in five specific circumstances; the Academy Trust has breached the provisions of (the Funding Agreements); or the standards of performance of pupils at the academy are unacceptably low; or there has been a serious breakdown in the way the academy is managed or governed; or the safety of pupils is threatened, including due to breakdown in discipline; or financial mismanagement or misuse of public funds. The MAT Members and Directors are also accountable through company and charity law for their decisions and actions (see B5). B3. How will the proposed multi academy trust be run? The MAT will be run in compliance with the Articles of Association and Funding Agreements. Initially, Members and Directors will need to be appointed to establish the MAT as a legal entity. Then the Directors will form a Board with the responsibility to run the MAT effectively, efficiently and compliantly. Each school will have a Local Governing Body with authority to run their school delegated by the Directors. DfE policy on Members and Directors is evolving, subject to change and can vary between officers. However, three key principles have remained reasonably constant. Members should not be Directors and vice versa, to create separation of responsibility and accountability. Employees of the MAT such as Headteachers should not be Members to avoid conflict of interest and influence over the governance of the MAT. Limit on Trust employees such as Headteachers being more than 1/3 of Directors The composition of the Members and Directors is typically a balancing act between representation of member schools and the scope to appoint individuals with the blend of expertise required to run the MAT. These areas of expertise include finance, legal, HR and business alongside education. The Governor working group have considered the appointment of Members and Directors carefully. They agreed the importance of each school being represented equally in both Members and Directors, school representatives being in the majority on both bodies and the importance of schools retaining control of the Members, given their power to amend the Trust Articles. The group also agreed that having independent Members and Directors was important to provide external perspective and challenge. The Governor working group propose the following; Members Seven (7) Members made of; o Each Local Governing Body would appoint two Members [total of six (6)] who would not be Directors aka School Members o Independent Member appointed by the School Members NCST Governor Briefing Page 3 of 10

4 Directors Up to eleven (11) Directors including; o Each Local Governing Body to appoint two directors including either the Chair or Vice Chair [total of six (6] o Each Headteacher [total of three (3)] o Two (2) independent Directors to be appointed by the Directors to provide specific expertise not provided by the school Directors The composition of the Local Governing Body will be left to each school to determine except for the requirement, as set out in the Articles of Association, for at least two parent governors. B4. How will decision-making within the MAT be managed and how will the autonomy of individual schools be protected? The Governor working group considered very carefully the importance of Governing Bodies and Headteachers having the freedom to run their schools as they see fit. They also recognised that the Members and Directors, many of whom will be current Governors, will have collective responsibilities and accountabilities that can only fulfilled by the Board retaining certain decisionmaking powers. The Governor working group has developed a detailed scheme of delegation that sets out the decision-making powers of the MAT Board, Local Governing Bodies and MAT Committees. This scheme of delegation sits alongside the Articles of Association but does not require DfE approval: the Directors can amend it as they see fit. Examples of the scheme in practice will be presented to Governors on February 4 th. The role of the Trust Board would be a combination of strategic oversight and planning, together with high-level approval of financial and employment matters. The group agreed that the Trust Board should have important role in monitoring and challenging the collective performance of member schools, given that educational under-performance would be the primary reason for the Secretary of State to intervene in any multi academy trust. The role of Local Governing Bodies (LGB) would be very similar to now, particularly in determining and monitoring the school s teaching, learning and curriculum plans and policies. Staffing, deployment and management would also remain a local responsibility. The Headteachers would form a Leadership Group with a formal, accountable role within the Trust to develop plans for partnership working and collaboration. There would not be a CEO but one Headteacher would be appointed to the statutory role Trust Accounting Officer. The group discussed the role of committees in providing specialist scrutiny and monitoring in Trustwide areas such as finance, HR and employment. The group noted that excessive bureaucracy was to be avoided. B5. What are the risks for Trust Members and Directors? As a Company Limited by Guarantee the Members have a personal liability of 10 should the company be wound up and have outstanding liabilities. The Directors have no personal financial liability and, as long as their decisions and actions are reasonable, made in good faith and would not be judged negligent, would not be subject to the principal risk of being barred from being a Director. C. FINANCES C1. How will schools be funded as part of the Trust? The funding for academies comes direct from the Education Funding Agency, a department within the Department for Education. Each school will continue to be funded according to the Newham Council funding formula for secondary schools until such time as there is change in the funding NCST Governor Briefing Page 4 of 10

5 formula for academies. This funding is called the General Annual Grant or GAG for short. Studentled SEND funding will continue to be paid to schools by the Local Authority. The schools will also receive additional funding in the form of the Education Services Grant. This is per-pupil funding to cover the costs of academy status and the responsibilities taken on by the MAT from the local authority. The Governor working group agreed to the key principle that each school would continue to receive its school funding (GAG). The Education Services Grant would be directed to the Trust to meet the central cost of running the Trust and providing services to schools. C2. How will the Trust and school finances be governed and managed? The Trust is required to comply with a range of financial legislation, regulations and contracts including; company law, charity law, Funding Agreements with Department for Education Trust Articles of Association Education Funding Agency s Academies Finance Handbook and guidance In particular, the Trust must produce a Trustees Report and an Annual Statement of Accounts, which have been independently audited by an auditor. The Trust is required to submit a budget forecast to the Education Funding Agency (EFA) in the July preceding the new academic and financial year. (Note: academies operate a September to August financial year,which is obviously aligned to the school year). Then the Trust is required to submit its audited accounts and a budget return statement in the January after the academic and financial year. The EFA can carry out the reviews rather like a financial Ofsted and there have been recent examples of Trusts being put into financial Special Measures. The working group agreed to propose that each school LGB be responsible for developing and proposing its annual budget. Then a Finance Committee, made up representatives from each LGB with appropriate financial expertise, would review the three school budgets. Their role would be to check the sustainability of the proposed budgets, investigate and understand any significant variations between schools or compared with previous years. In parallel, the Finance Committee would review the central Trust budget proposed by the Leadership Group. They would then recommend an overall Trust budget incorporating the school and Trust central budgets. The Trust Board would approve the overall Trust budget. Thereafter it would be the responsibility of the LGB to monitor their school budget and the Finance Committee to monitor the overall Trust budget and report to the Trust Board. Monthly reports would be produced for all involved. A separate Audit Committee would be responsible for overseeing the independent audit of accounts as well as managing the rolling programme of internal audit. D. STAFF D1. How will the employment of staff be affected? Currently, all staff are employed by the London Borough of Newham. Should the three schools establish the multi academy trust then all staff would transfer to be employed by the Trust. This is similar to the old grant-maintained status or the current Foundation or Voluntary Aided (VA) status where the Governing Body is the employer. NCST Governor Briefing Page 5 of 10

6 The transfer of staff is subject to specific legislation called the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment 2006 Regulations or TUPE for short. This means that staff are legally protected to transfer under their current employment terms and conditions, including pensions. The regulations require that the current employer, the London Borough of Newham, must consult with unions, professional associations and staff on the transfer. Part of this consultation process is that the current employer must write a letter called the Regulation 13 letter setting out the reasons and implications of the transfer of employment. The regulations also require that the future employer, the multi academy trust, sets out to the current employer any proposed changes (the Measures ) that could affect employees. Examples include plans to re-organise staff or introduce new ways of working. The working group does not envisage proposing any Measures. Staff would receive copies of both the Measures letter and Regulation 13 letters. D2. How will staff terms & conditions be affected? As the employer the Trust would be responsible for developing, implementing and monitoring all policies relating to the employment of staff such as pay, performance management, discipline and equal opportunities. Almost all of these policies would transfer as a protected term and condition at the point of transfer. Like any large employer the Trust would need to consult with staff on any future changes to policy. The Trust could not automatically adopt future national collective agreements on pay and conditions such as STPCD legal reasons (basically because it would not be represented at those negotiations). However, the working group has already committed to seek to adopt the national and local agreements for annual pay awards agreed between unions and employers for teachers and support staff respectively. This would mean at least parity with national/local pay, terms and conditions place and the London living wage as a minimum. The working group also committed to the Trust operating a single tier workforce with existing, new and promoted staff having the same prevailing terms and conditions of employment. D3. What role will unions and professional associations play? The working group also has committed to adopt the union recognition agreement already agreed between Trust and unions elsewhere in Newham. Therefore on-going dialogue, consultation and negotiation with unions and professional associations would be hard-wired into the Trust operations. E. CONSULTATION E1. How will the Governing Bodies consult on the partnership proposal with stakeholders? The working group proposes to consult as per the consultation plan in appendix A. The proposed academy consultation is 7 calendar or 6 academic weeks long, which is longer than the more usual 4 weeks. It also includes two rounds of staff consultation meetings with feedback between rather than the more usual single consultation meeting. The plan also includes extensive involvement of unions and professional associations. NCST Governor Briefing Page 6 of 10

7 APPENDIX A: PROPOSED NEWHAM COMMUNITY SCHOOLS TRUST CONSULTATION PLAN Consultation Objectives To enable Governing Bodies to decide whether to proceed with the proposal to create the Newham Schools Community Trust (working title) having consulted with stakeholders To present to stakeholders clear information on the proposal to establish the Newham Schools Community Trust To gather stakeholder feedback on the proposal and understand the level of stakeholder interest, support and objection Consultation Audiences, Activities and Timings Consultation to run from Thursday February 5 th until Wednesday, March 25th th (7 weeks) Consultation programme to be coordinated between the three schools for consistency but three separate consultations to be run by the respective Governing Bodies # Audience Key activities Key timings 1. Governing Bodies 1. Governing Body to vote on whether to consult 2. Governing Body to consider consultation report and vote whether to proceed with proposal 3. Governing Body to publish final consultation report 2. Staff 1. Letter, FAQs and questionnaire to all staff at start of consultation 2. 1 st consultation meeting for all staff 3. 1 st consultation update 4. 2 nd consultation meeting for all staff 5. Final consultation update 6. Final date for receipt of questionnaires 3. Unions 1. Letter, FAQs and questionnaire sent to union and professional association representatives 2. Representatives to be invited to attend staff consultation meetings 3. Consultation meeting with representatives 4. Follow up response to issues raised by representatives 4. Parents and carers 5. Final date for receipt of questionnaires 1. Letter, FAQs and questionnaire sent to all parents at start of Academy consultation 2. Consultation meeting(s) 3. Consultation update 4. Final date for receipt of questionnaires 5. Students 1. TBC 1. TBC 6. MP, Local Councillors and Community Leaders 1. Letter, FAQs and questionnaire to be sent to MP, Local Councillors and Community Leaders 2. Invitation to attend parent and carer consultation meetings 7. Headteachers of local schools 3. Final date for receipt of questionnaires 1. Letter, FAQs and questionnaire with invitation to have one-to-one conversation about the proposal 2. Final date for receipt of questionnaires 1. Feb 4 th (Gateway #2) 2. w/c April 1 st (Gateway #3) 3. w/c April 20 th 1. Feb 9 th 2. w/c Feb 23 rd 3. By Feb 27 th 4. w/c March 9 th 5. By March 13 th 6. By March 20 th 1. Feb 9 th 2. w/c Feb 23 rd and March 9 th 3. w/c March 2 nd 4. By March 6 th 5. By March 20 th 1. Feb 9th 2. w/c March 2 nd 3. By March 6 th 4. By March 20 th 1. Feb 9 th 2. w/c March 2 nd 3. By March 20 th 1. Feb 9 th 2. By March 20 th NCST Governor Briefing Page 7 of 10

8 APPENDIX B: WORKING GROUP UPDATE JANAURY 2015 Introduction The three Governing Bodies of Lister, Rokeby and Sarah Bonnell schools are agreed to establish a joint working group to developed detailed plans for the governance, leadership and operation of the proposed multi academy trust. These plans are to be presented to Governing Bodies on February 4 th as part of their consideration on whether to progress with the proposed multi academy trust by consulting with stakeholders. This update summarises the progress made by the working group in its first two meeting. Membership and meeting dates The working group has the following members; Lister School Rokeby School Sarah Bonnell School Advisors Dave Wood (Chair, Governors) Neil Deighton (Governor) Anthony Wilson (Headteacher) Alison Morris (Governor) to deputise for Dave Wood Jan 15th John Ainsworth (Vice Chair, Governors) Jackie Hewison (Governor) Charlotte Robinson (Headteacher) Roger Hylton (Governor) to also attend Jan 15th Paul Leslie (Vice Chair) Michelle Burgess-Allen (Governor) Sarah Jacobs (Headteacher) Kristian Grice (Governor) deputised for Paul Leslie Dec 15th Philip Cranwell (Cranwell Consultancy) Andrea Squires (Winckworth Sherwood Law) Anna Shadbolt (Winckworth Sherwood Law) The working group has met twice: Tuesday, November 25 th and Monday, December 15 th. Summary of workshop #1 Having initially agreed the purpose, scope and timetable of the working group meetings, the group asked the Headteachers to explain their rationale for proposing the partnership and the multi academy trust as the partnership vehicle. It was agreed that the rationale was more detailed than that summarised in the first Governor presentation and sharing it with Governors would be helpful. (Attached is a summary of the rationale in the form of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) prepared for staff as part of on-going information.) The group then considered the range of questions, issues and concerns raised by Governors. It was agreed that these would be captured in the form of an issues log would be created. This log will be used as a checklist through the working group process to ensure that all questions, issues and concerns were addressed. Decision-making and delegation of powers The group were then briefed on some of the legal, regulatory and DfE parameters for multi academy trust and the associated legal documents (Articles of Association and Funding Agreements). It was noted that the proposed Trust would need to develop, in addition to these legal documents, its own detailed approach to governance, leadership and operation such as a scheme of delegation and terms of reference. The scheme of delegation would set out the decision-making powers of the Trust Board, Trust Committees and Local Governing Bodies and where ultimate approval would rest. It would also set out the process for plans, proposals and policies to be developed, considered and approved across the different governance bodies. The group agreed the key principle of balanced autonomy such that the Trust Directors, which would most likely be existing Governors, could fulfil their responsibilities and accountabilities without impinging on the freedom of Local Governing Bodies to oversee and manage their schools. The group then discussed some typical strategic decision-making scenarios to understand how the scheme of delegation might work in practice. This guided the subsequent drafting of the first version of a scheme of delegation. NCST Governor Briefing Page 8 of 10

9 Outputs from workshop #1 Draft Scheme of Delegation Issues Log Summary of workshop #2 The role of the Trust Board, committees and Local Governing Bodies The group started by reviewing the draft scheme of delegation to understand the key responsibilities of the Trust Board and Local Governing Bodies. The group noted that the balance of decision-making between the two bodies seemed appropriate. The role of the Trust Board would be a combination of strategic oversight and planning together with highlevel approval of financial and employment matters. The group agreed that the Trust Board should have important role in monitoring and challenging the collective performance of member schools, given that educational under-performance would be the primary reason for the Secretary of State to intervene in any multi academy trust. The role of Local Governing Bodies would be very similar to now, particularly in determining and monitoring the school s teaching, learning and curriculum plans and policies. Staffing, deployment and management would also remain a local responsibility. The group discussed the role of committees in providing specialist scrutiny and monitoring in Trust-wide areas such as finance, HR and employment. The group noted that excessive bureaucracy was to be avoided. Composition of the Members and Trust Board Having developed a clearer understanding of the role of the Trust Board the group then considered the composition of the Board. The group was briefed on the current DfE guidance on Members and Directors, including; Separate Members and Directors to ensure Members can hold Directors to account Preference for five (5) Members rather than the minimum of three, and no Trust employees Preference for small Boards (6-9) with a blend of educational, financial, legal and HR expertise Limit on Trust employees such as Headteachers being more than 1/3 of Directors The group agreed the importance of each school being represented equally in both Members and Directors, school representatives being in the majority on both bodies and the importance of schools retaining control of the Members given their power to amend the Trust Articles. The group also agreed that having independent Members and Directors was important to provide external perspective and challenge. After discussion the group agreed the following proposals; Seven (7) Members made of; o Each Local Governing Body would appoint two Members [total of six (6)] who would not be Directors o Independent Member appointed by the school Members Up to eleven (11) Directors including; o Each Local Governing Body to appoint two directors including either the Chair or Vice Chair [total of six (6] o Each Headteacher [total of three (3)] o Two (2) independent Directors to be appointed by the Directors to provide specific expertise not provided by the school Directors The group noted that this composition would need to be approved by the DfE. Staff terms and conditions and unions The group were briefed by the Headteachers on the NUT campaign for a strike ballot and strike before the Governing Bodies consider the proposals on February 4 th. The group noted that staff were naturally concerned about their future terms and conditions. The group agreed that the schools would want to staff terms and conditions to match or exceed national/local agreements. The group agreed to develop two draft documents to reassure staff; Indicative Trust pay policy Draft Trust union recognition agreement NCST Governor Briefing Page 9 of 10

10 Outputs from workshop #2 Governance structure and strategy Revised scheme of delegation Draft Trust union recognition agreement Next workshop January 15th NCST Governor Briefing Page 10 of 10