Content

RESOLVED:
 
Cabinet proceed to publish statutory
proposals to:
 
3.1 
close De
Beauvoir Primary School from September 2024.

 
3.2 
close
Randal Cremer Primary School from September 2024.
 
3.3 
close
Colvestone Primary School from
September 2024, guarantee all children a place at Princess May
Primary School if they want it.
 
3.4 
close
Baden Powell Primary School from September 2024, guarantee all
children a place at Nightingale Primary School if they want
it.
 
3.5 
increase
the published admission number of Nightingale Primary School by
adding an additional form of entry to all year groups. This
proposal is related to the decision at 3.4.
 
REASON FOR DECISION
 
Following seven years of unprecedented growth, the number
of primary aged children joining reception classes in Hackney
primary schools peaked in 2014/15 and has been in steady decline
since, a trend observed across London and most prevalent in
inner-London boroughs. Applying the information available to us,
pupil numbers joining reception classes are not forecast to rise
significantly in future, for the time we have forecasts for (see
Appendix C).
 
School funding is primarily determined by the number of
children on roll, and falling rolls equate to reduced funding to
deliver education across the borough. While primary schools’
rolls are falling but the number of schools remains unchanged,
there is effectively less financial resource across all schools.
This is because many costs are driven by the number of classes in a
school, whereas funding levels are driven by the number of
pupils.
 
The Council has a statutory duty to ensure there are a
sufficient number of school places for pupils and that places are
planned effectively. The Council monitors surplus reception places,
a key measure of demand, and aims to maintain a 5-10% surplus
across all Hackney primary schools.
 
Despite removing 375 reception places across Hackney
schools between 2019 and 2023, the projections still indicate a
steady increase in surplus reception places from 19% in 2023/24 up
to 23% in 2025/26. This surplus is then projected to slowly
decrease and stagnate at 20% until the end of the projection period
in 2031/32. Analysis of past, current and projected demand and
summary of reception places removed to date is provided in Appendix
C.
 
Hackney Education’s senior leadership team took the
decision to propose closure/merger of six schools in September 2022
following analysis of a range of objective measures evidencing the
impact of falling rolls on school’s viability. Following
early engagement with head teachers and chairs of governors from
January 2023 the proposals were publicly launched on 28 March 2023
and school community engagement activity was undertaken with staff
and parents in April 2023. Community queries and feedback from
March to May period can be seen in Appendix D by theme (as it was
detailed in May 2023 Cabinet report appendices).
 
On 22 May 2023 Cabinet decided to proceed to consultation
on all four proposals (The May cabinet paper is included as
Appendix E). The consultation ran for 6 weeks, from 5 June to 16
July 2023, gathering feedback on the proposals from parents and
staff of the schools in scope and other stakeholders that may be
impacted by the decisions.
 
Analysis of the consultation responses are summarised in
this report and it is now recommended that Cabinet agree to proceed
to publish statutory proposals 3.1 to 3.5 outlined
above.
 
If Cabinet agrees to publication of these proposals, then
there would be a period of at least 28 days for people to make
representations on the proposals.The
Council would collect in all representations received in that time,
consider them, and then the final decision about whether to proceed
with the proposed closures and mergers is scheduled for the Cabinet
meeting in December 2023.
 
Previous consultation outcome
 
At the end of the previous consultation period, a total of
613 postal and online questionnaires had been received, and a
further 9 responses were received by other routes.
 
Response to the proposals was overwhelmingly negative with
89% of respondees disagreeing with the
proposals, 3% neither agreeing or disagreeing and 8% agreeing. That
prior consultation process, outcomes and response is outlined in
detail in section 6 below.
 
Despite this overwhelming opposition, it is nonetheless
still recommended to Cabinet to proceed with publishing statutory
proposals. This is for the reasons set out below.
 
· 
On the best
information available to us, there are not enough
children in the borough and neighbouring areas seeking places
at Hackney primary schools. All the reception places at all 58
primary schools in Hackney were required just 9 years ago to meet
our statutory obligations and offer all residents a
place.  However rapid and sustained
decline in the number of children joining our primary schools mean
that they are no longer filling up. 
 
Our schools currently have over 600 empty places
in Reception classes alone (21% surplus) however the Council aims
to have between 5 and 10% surplus. The number of children projected
to need places in Reception over the coming years shows that, on
the projected figures we have, without reducing the number of
schools in the borough, we will continue to have over 550 vacant
spaces (20%+ surplus) until at least 2030. (section 4.12 below and
Appendix C)
 
· 
High vacancy rates
mean that schools become financially unviable over
time. A school’s funding is based on the number of children
on roll, so schools with lots of vacancies have a smaller budget
than schools that are full, but they carry the same financial,
educational and wellbeing responsibilities to their children,
families and staff.
 
As an example, in 2022/23, for every surplus place
that a maintained primary school carries, it lost on average
£6,484 per surplus place.  For a
one form entry school carrying 33% surplus places in every year
group (10 empty seats in a class of 30), the school would be losing
out on a potential £453,880 additional income, with no change
to the number of class teachers, who represent the primary expense
in school budgets.
 
In this situation schools are forced to use their
surplus funds or go into deficit to ensure the quality of education
for Hackney children is maintained. Over two thirds of
Hackney’s maintained schools, or the federations they form
part of, are predicting they will over-spend by the end of the
2023/24 financial year. (section 4.14 to 4.12)
 
To avoid going into deficit, or to bring a
school’s deficit back under control, school governors are
forced to make difficult decisions about whether to reduce the
number of teachers or teaching assistants, support staff, school
leaders, put off investment or maintenance in school building and
equipment or find other savings, all of which impacts
negatively on the quality of education and school experience
for Hackney children and staff. (section 4.33 to 4.36)
 
· 
The Council is financially liable for any maintained school deficits,
and must decide each year whether to continue to fund a school in
deficit. When a maintained school closes the Council is responsible
for the debt carried by the school at the point of closure. This
also applies when schools faced with financial challenges convert
to academies. (section 4.26)
 
If the Council does not take action to reduce the
number of primary schools to align with the current and projected
demand we knowingly take on increased financial burden and
responsibility at a time when we are required to find £57m in
savings over the next 3 years.
 
The longer the Council delays taking action, the
greater the financial burden it will inherit.
 
· 
Further
measures to address falling rolls are likely to be
required in
the coming years to bring the primary school estate in line with
current and projected demand. 
 
If taken forward, the proposals outlined in this
report would begin to address the issue of falling rolls by
removing 90 reception places; however, in isolation, this is
unlikely to resolve the problem and, based on current projections,
further action to bring surplus reception places under 10% is
likely.
 
On this basis the Council will continue to work
together with our schools to review and adjust future plans in line
with the priorities outlined in the Education Sufficiency and
Estates Strategy to bring surplus reception places to within a
sustainable range (ie.
5-10%).
 
· 
It is believed that a
merger can deliver significant benefits, if the
council decides to proceed, from the proposed arrangements for
pupils currently at Baden Powell to join Nightingale Schools, and
those at Colvestone to join Princess
May Schools, and would create stronger educational establishments
in each case. 
 
It is anticipated that the receiving schools in
each case would benefit from increased income and financial
stability through higher numbers of pupils on roll.  Managed effectively the schools could benefit from
more robust resourcing and could positively impact academic
opportunities, access to specialised teachers and wider range of
extracurricular activities and clubs.
 
A larger student body can provide pupils with a
more extensive and diverse peer group, promoting social skills and
cultural awareness.  It is believed the
proposed mergers could, with the engagement of parents and school
leaders, foster a sense of community among parents and pupils from
both schools.
 

Falling pupil
numbers
 
Figure 1 below shows the observed number
of children in Hackney primary schools (in blue), down by 1,787
between 2018 and 2023. This reduced borough-wide roll means that in
2022/23, Hackney receives circa £11.5m less Dedicated Schools
Grant (DSG) Schools Block funding based on 2022/23 per pupil
funding rates, compared with 2018/19.
 
Figure 1 also forecasts the total number
of children in Hackney primary schools between 2024 and 2029 (in
red) based on GLA’s projected number of reception joiners. An
additional net loss of 200 children per year is factored into the
projection on the basis that at least this number have left Hackney
primary schools each year between 2019 and 2023.
 
Impact on school income
 
Individual primary school balances in Hackney stood at a
total of £9.9m in 2020/21. They reduced in 2021/22 to
£9.08m and then fell significantly to £5.8m in
2022/23.
 
The decline in school balances is a national issue as
schools face increasing cost pressures and reducing numbers on
roll. It is becoming extremely difficult for schools to remain
financially viable when pupil numbers are falling as most school
funding is pupil-based in line with the School’s National
funding formula. Unused or vacant school places create an immediate
cost for schools through reduced budgets, which in turn can affect
the overall sustainability and quality of education standards at a
school. As pupil numbers decrease, the majority of schools
experience a less than full year group and, therefore, an inability
to maximise the use of resources. This is because many costs are
driven by the number of classes in a school, whereas funding levels
are driven by the number of pupils.
 
Under legislation, schools retain a high degree of autonomy
when setting budgets unless they are in a deficit position. Schools
have been reminded of the need to forecast as accurately as
possible so that decisions are taken in the light of accurate
budget projections.
 
Schools in deficit are required to complete deficit
recovery plans to bring their budget back into balance by
elimination of the deficit within three years.
 
Currently, the four schools proposed to close have budgeted
for a deficit/surplus position at the close of 2023/24 as
follows:
· 
Baden Powell
 
-£300k
· 
Colvestone 
-£589k
· 
De
Beauvoir 
-£128k
· 
Randal
Cremer 
£189k
 
Princess May anticipates an in-year surplus of £34k,
closing with a balance of £64k. Nightingale forecasts a
break-even position at the close of 2023/24 ie maintaining their 2022-23 brought forward
surplus of £138k.
 
The current financial status of Hackney’s maintained
primary schools is outlined in the table below.
 
More than two thirds of Hackney’s maintained primary
schools have budgeted for an in-year over spend at the end of the
2023/24 financial year. This trend is expected to continue as roll
numbers continue to fall.
 
From this table it can be seen that one school proposed to
close is particularly financially unsustainable: Colvestone, which ended the 2022/23 year with an
extremely large deficit balance of £561,646.
 
In order to avoid unnecessary process duplication and to
ensure efficient use of resources the council’s finance
department has not produced alternative financial modelling for
Colvestone following the agreement with
the school on the deployment of a SRMA (School Resource Management
Adviser) report process. This was carried out by an independent
SRMA.
 
Those in favour of keeping Colvestone open suggest the recent reporting
supports a view that Colvestone can be
financially viable in the future and has the capacity to pay down
the deficit. 
 
The local authority does not agree with this assessment,
with a number of assumptions based on non-sustainable funding
informing, and considers the school to be financially unviable The
SMRA expresses the view that the schools’ “overall
financial position is precarious. The school and SRMA have
discussed potential ways the deficit could be reduced and the debt
repaid to the Local Authority. School leadership has been and still
is, very mindful of how efficiencies may impact pupil outcomes and
teaching standards.”
 
The SMRA’s view is that it would be “extremely
challenging” for the school to balance their budget and repay
the current deficit over three/four years. They point out that
“any chance of financial recovery heavily relies on strong
incoming pupil numbers and current budgets are reliant on almost
full cohorts of Reception children entering the
school.”
 
The local authority does not accept the statement made in
the report that “the SRMA and school have discussed the pupil
number forecasts with the LA, who advised that these numbers are
not unrealistic.”  The local
authority is firmly of the view that the projected number of
children joining the school, on which the budget is based, are
unrealistic. The budgets are based on 24 children joining reception
in September 2023, 27 in 2024 and 30 in 2025.  14 children joined the school in the Reception
class in September 2023.
 
The SRMA goes on to say “.. it is evident that demand
for Reception places is falling, with London Councils, the
collective of London Councils, predicting a 12% decrease in demand
for Reception places in Hackney between 22/23 and 26/27. Therefore,
the forecasts may be unfeasible. The school can better gauge this
once September 2023 numbers are confirmed.”
 
The 3-yr projected budget produced by the Senior Leadership
Team (2023/24 - 2025/26) submitted in May 2023 projects a growing
deficit as follows:
 
By the schools’ own forecasts, despite an in year
surplus in 22/23 of £28,319 (supported by a £50,000
mid year additional cash injection),
they are unable to demonstrate capacity to address their
outstanding deficit.  
 
The Council's schools finance team monitors the finance and
budgets of all locally maintained schools, and with schools such as
Colvestone, have regular finance
monitoring meetings with the school leadership to review progress
with the agreed licensed deficit recovery plan.
 
The Council has a responsibility to deliver Best Value, and
continuous improvement through the efficient, effective and
economic management of our school estate, whilst also ensuring that
secure, sustainable and high-quality education is in place for the
children and young people of Hackney now and into the
future.
 
The Council is financially liable for maintained schools
affected by falling rolls and they must act in a timely way to
minimise the risk of schools going into or increasing
deficits.
 
If a school closes the local authority meets the cost of
any deficit balance from the General Fund. In the event of
academisation, there are two scenarios:
for convertor academies (those that voluntarily convert) the
deficit is repaid to the local authority by the DfE and recouped from the academy; for sponsored
academies (forced conversion due to the school being assessed as
inadequate) the deficit remains with the local authority to be paid
from the General Fund.
 
Schools with excess physical space and
large sites
 
Many schools that have had their published admission
numbers (PANs) reduced or capped to reflect falling demand
(Appendix C, section 4) retain responsibility for the day to day
repair, maintenance and securing the unused parts of their
buildings and sites.
 
While reducing or capping PANs allows greater certainty
when planning staffing budgets, the combination of reduced income
and premises costs bring significant additional financial pressure
to schools with significant unused 
physical space.
 
Staffing and delivery of education must be prioritised when
budgeting with limited financial resources leading schools in these
circumstances to underinvest in maintenance of their buildings.
This can lead to significant longer term issues and increased need
for capital funding to deal with a lack of maintenance.
 
Roll instability
 
Figure 1 above demonstrates the growing number of surplus
places across all year groups which make it easier for families to
move their children from school to school.
 
School admissions regulations protect parental preference
and parent’s right to move their child between schools if
that is what they wish. This means that schools are obliged to
admit children when they have spaces, regardless of whether they
are able to meet the joining child’s needs.
 
High levels of pupil mobility bring significant challenges
for schools because inducting and supporting new children
thoroughly calls on additional resources to support staff and
teachers and is unsettling for existing students.
 
Quality of education offer
 
Schools with reduced budgets have less income for support
staff such as teaching assistants and learning mentors, who provide
important support for pupils through academic and pastoral
interventions. Specialist teachers with expertise in physical
education, music, languages or art become too expensive, meaning
primary class teachers who may not be skilled or
trained  in these areas have to teach
these subjects themselves.  It is also
common in small schools to see leaders double up on roles, such as
headteachers taking on the SENCO
responsibility.
 
As budget pressure becomes greater, and class sizes drop
below 50%, schools must also consider the option of
“vertically grouped” classes to avoid going into
deficit. This involves a sufficiently experienced and able teacher
being employed to teach children from across two year groups in the
same classroom. Vertical grouping brings increased complexity in
day to day management and organisation and increased workload for
the teacher. The challenges of recruiting and retaining skilled and
experienced teachers in London can make schools under grave
financial pressure less attractive.
 
In addition, limited budgets mean that occasional but
important work to maintain the quality of experience at school is
not taken forward in a timely manner e.g. the computers used by
staff and children become increasingly obsolete and need
replacement, sometimes across the whole school at once due to their
original purchase being made in bulk.
 
Enrichment activities have to be curtailed such as
curriculum days which schools might run to enhance an offer (i.e.
Roman Days led by external companies). Clubs and wrap around
provision can also be affected.
 
Impact of new housing and
regeneration
 
There are proposed areas for regeneration and new housing
across the borough and in some of the areas close to the schools
covered in this report. However, despite the extensive Council and
family housing planned, the expected initial child yield is low and
would not impact medium to long term demand.  For the projected figures we have there would
remain enough school places to accommodate need. Projections
obtained annually from the Greater London Authority take into
account proposed new developments that have attained planning
permission.
 
Since 2011, the Council’s in-house building programme
has delivered more than 1,000 new homes, prioritising homes for
Council social rent. Between 2018 and 2022, we started, completed
or received planning permission for 1,984 homes – more than
half being genuinely affordable. Over the next few years,
we’ll also complete 1,146 homes, including 255 social rent
homes and 136 shared ownership homes, on the existing programmes of
council homes.
 
This means that between 2022 and 2026, we’ll start
building, and support partners to build, 1,000 new homes for social
rent through a mix of methods.  In this
context, the Mayor and Cabinet agreed, in December 2022, a direct
programme of 400 additional new homes on sites we’ve
identified via our HRA asset base; 75% of which are proposed for
Council social rent.
 
The recently undertaken Strategic Housing Market Assessment
2023 indicates that household growth in Hackney between 2022 and
2039 will be predominantly single people (+45.1%) and co-habiting,
i.e. shared living, households (+44.2%). In comparison, there is
little change in the projection for families with children over the
same period. With the exception of Stamford Hill, the majority of
Borough-wide housing need is for smaller homes. This is important
in considering the likely effect of such housing on pupil
numbers.
 
Adopted in July 2020, the Hackney Local Plan 2033 (LP33),
requires that all new development in the borough have regard to
existing social infrastructure, which includes the provision of
education facilities. Within LP33, policy LP8 states that ‘where proposed development is expected to place pressure
on existing social infrastructure by increasing demand, these
developments will be expected to contribute towards the provision
of additional social infrastructure to meet needs, either through
on-site provision or through contributions towards providing
additional capacity off-site.’
 
The Infrastructure Delivery Plan, which informed the
policies within LP33, notes that while the borough’s
population is expected to increase to 321,000 by 2033 (42,000
higher than in 2018), that the age mix of the borough is
anticipated to shift towards the older community with the growth in
over 65s being four times greater than the growth in the school age
population, ages 0-15. Again, such long term forecasting suggests
that changes which forecast increases to the overall general
population, need to be balanced against demographic changes over
this time.
 
While there are variances across the different housing
tenures, across the Council’s programme as a whole, just over
70% of the homes delivered have been 1 and 2 bed homes; with just
under 30% comprising a mix of 3 and 4 bed family sized homes. This
is broadly consistent with policy LP14 as outlined in LP33, which,
depending on the tenure of housing, requires all new developments
to comprise a mix of family sized homes, ranging from 15 to 36%.
Despite Hackney building new homes the numbers will be
insufficient to have any significant impact on the proposals in
this report for schools in scope for closure and/or
merger.
 
Some points put forward against the
proposal
 
Numerous points have been made against the proposals. The
following summarises some of the principal points that have been
made. It is not intended to be comprehensive. A fuller summary of
the points made against the proposal is set out in Appendix S,
which contains the summary of consultation responses.
 
It is said that local school communities are opposed to
these changes.
 
The Council’s forecast pupil numbers has been
challenged. It is said that Colvestone
has a stabilising roll. The Save Colvestone group submitted detailed information on
projected in-year surpluses for future years. They also note the
Colvestone 21st Century Street
initiative, a short term / 1-2 year initiative to make Colvestone a permanent playstreet. It is said this may increase the number
of families drawn to the area.
 
It has been said by some that Colvestone is financially stable, and that the
previous consultation material did not provide financial
information verified by a SMRA report showing Colvestone school to be financially viable. (This
point is addressed at 4.22) It is also said that future housing
development will increase numbers. Conversely, it is said that it
is important to consider the potentially negative impact which
these proposed school closures are likely to have on future housing
provision and regeneration, such as in Dalston.
 
It is said that the Council’s estimation of children
who may move to Princess May School fails to take account of
Colvestone’s survey of parents,
which indicate that many would not send their children to Princess
May School. A separate concern has been raised that if fewer than
the 120 projected children moved from Colvestone to Princess May, then Princess May
may also be at risk of closure in the
future; and may be so at risk even if 120 children transfer, as
there would still be an approximately 23% vacancy at Princess
May.
 
It is said by those opposed to the closure of Colvestone School that the air quality is
significantly worse at Princess May School. Hackney’s Air
Quality Action Plan 2021-2025 identifies school communities as one
of the most susceptible groups for air pollution. The Council
considers that, although there are slightly higher levels of air
pollution at Princess May, both are within acceptable air quality
limits.
 
Those in favour of keeping Colvestone open draw attention to the proportion of
children on the SEND register at that school, which is higher than
other schools. A concern was raised that the Council has not
addressed Colvestone’s record on
SEND; and that that the School has implemented a SEND strategy with
excellent feedback. It is also said that consideration should be
given to the potential savings of Colvestone’s integrated SEND provision, and
its current surplus capacity, which it is said has the potential to
save the Council money that it would otherwise have to spend in
sending children with SEND to independent schools.
 
Those in favour of keeping Colvestone open also note its important history, as
the last surviving Birkbeck School,
which they say makes it a socially and historically important part
of Londonand Hackney’s past; as
well as the Ridley Road market, which is a historic London
market.
 
It was proposed that Colvestone
has the ability to provide high quality education as a 1 form entry
school on an “appropriately sized” site with all
aspects of the site utilised and in a manageable condition; and
that the school keeper’s house could be used as an
ARP.
 
Those in favour of keeping Colvestone open draw attention to the absence of
risk assessment or costs of the size of schools, or comparisons of
schools.
 
 
Questions were raised about Hackney Education’s
processes to ensure a school does not have a deficit and comments
that issues were not raised in a remote audit. Respondents believe
that Colvestone budgets are achievable
and state that systems are in place to resolve historic debts;
surplus has been achieved despite historic debts and again the
respondents raise questions about the Hackney Education
audit.
 
Those in favour of keeping Colvestone open claim that the school acts as a
‘social binder’ and closing it would damage the
community, exacerbate exactly the kind of social atomisation and
flight of families from the borough that the closure is meant to
address. They claim closing the school threatens the mental
wellbeing of children in particular, driving phenomena such as
emotionally based school avoidance.
 
Respondents question why what is described as
‘absolute faith’ is being placed in GLA projections
population figures when in 2017 the projections were wrong, and led
to ‘disastrous greenlighting of
free schools’ in the borough that ‘largely produced the
current problem’. They question why viable schools are not
being supported through this period, particularly in Colvestone’s case, given the scale of
housebuilding projected in central
Dalston.
 
Those in favour of keeping Colvestone open claim the consultation process has
key flaws including it being said that-
· 
The consultation
failed to follow the statutory guidance and estate
strategy
· 
A briefing report
prepared for Cabinet was ill informed and lacking detail
· 
Respondents claimed
that they had been told the consultation was intended to help the
Council determine whether to close the schools, but it was said
that its design made it ineffective for that purpose
· 
Respondents claimed
that the consultation was inaccessible to some of the groups that
should have been included
· 
Respondents claimed
that the consultation process itself damaged the financial
viability of the schools in scope
 
Those in favour of keeping Colvestone open claim estimates of the costs
associated with closing schools are inaccurate and fails to account
for retention bonuses, the possibility of increased out-of-borough
SEN provision, that estimates of redundancy costs are questionable
and do not account for loss of revenue to the borough if families
leave or go to free schools, academies or private
schools.
 
It was claimed that the approach adopted to closure/merger
is unusually aggressive, untested and the consequence
unknown.  They claim the council
doesn’t know how best to support staff, families and students
and minimise damage to educational outcomes and that it can’t
predict what all the costs will be or how to design the process to
minimise them.
 
It was claimed that Keeping Colvestone open is a win for the Council, showing
the Council does genuinely listen to residents, is carefully
considering which schools to close and was telling the truth when
it said a decision had not been made.
 
It was claimed that Colvestone
has a bright future in Hackney, that it has been an important part
of this community for 161 years and with the Council’s
support it can continue to thrive as a key pillar of the
community.  They cite benefits of the
school remaining open are:
· 
Ensures the provision
of an academically strong, non-denominational, one-form entry
community school for families.
· 
Enables Hackney to
recover Colvestone’s budget
deficit by allowing the school to pay it down over time.
· 
Supports the future
development of Hackney, attracting families to the new housing in
the Dalston Plan and anchoring the
borough’s first 21st Century Street on Colvestone Crescent.
· 
Preserves provision
that reflects desires of Hackney residents, 84% of whom want
non-faith education.
· 
Provides strong SEND
provision that can be expanded to meet the urgent need in the
borough.
· 
Saves the taxpayer the
enormous cost of closing the school and of paying off the
deficit.
· 
Sends the message that
the Council listens and does genuinely take the feedback of
residents into consideration. It increases faith in the
authenticity of the Council’s consultation
processes
 
DETAILS OF ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED AND NOT
FAVOURED
 
Option 1 - No action
 
The Council has a responsibility to manage school places
effectively, ensure that schools provide high quality education for
children, and deliver Best Value, and continuous improvement
through the efficient, effective and economic management of our
school estate.
 
The Council is ambitious for Hackney children, our schools
achieve excellent results and we want to ensure they remain among
the very best in the country.
 
If no action is taken it is inevitable that quality of
education and outcomes for Hackney children are at risk and the
Council will be liable for the costs of schools worst affected by
falling rolls as they move into debt or increase their deficit and
eventually close for financial reasons.
 
As outlined in section 4, the operational and financial
challenges affecting schools with falling rolls will continue to
increase with a negative impact on pupils and the Council’s
financial position. Taking no action to the issues affecting
schools with falling rolls is not an acceptable option available to
the Council.
 
Option 2 - Phase implementation of the
current proposals over 2 or more years
 
This option was rejected as there is an urgent need to take
action and any delay is very likely to result in increased
financial liability for the council as schools at risk move toward
or increase their deficit position.
 
Additionally, further measures to address falling rolls are
likely to be required in the coming years to bring the primary
school estate in line with current and projected demand. If taken
forward, the proposals outlined in this report would begin to
address the issue of falling rolls by removing 90 reception places;
however, in isolation, this is unlikely to resolve the problem and,
based on current projections, further action to bring surplus
reception places under 10% is likely. 
 
Option 3: Close/merge more schools than
those currently proposed.
 
Further measures to address falling rolls, over and above
those proposed in this paper, are likely to be required in the
coming years to bring the primary school estate in line with
current and projected demand.
  
Action to address falling rolls that involve more schools
than the six that would potentially be affected by the current
proposals was considered. This option might be considered by some
to be favourable because it could provide greater reassurance that
children,  forced to move school as a
result of their school closing, would be less likely to have to
move primary school again if further action is required in the
future.
 
This option was not preferred due to limited resourcing and
capacity to effectively manage and mitigate impact of a greater
number of closures/mergers. 
 
Option 4: Alternative options for De
Beauvior primary
 
Alternative pairings for the proposals were considered and
detailed in the May Cabinet report, additional suggestions have
been put forward in the consultation summarised below:
 
Merging De Beauvoir and Randal Cremer on either site was
suggested however it was not considered a feasible option for all
families as the schools are 1.1 miles apart, walking distance which
is a 25 minute walk, and the distance would be a barrier for those
living for example, north of De Beauvoir or south of Randal
Cremer.
 
Merging De Beauviour and
Princess May on either site was suggested however it was not
considered a viable option as it was considered unlikely to lead to
sufficiently stabilising numbers of pupils at either school.
Although a merger with Princess May was not proposed, at 16 minute
walk (0.7 miles away) it is likely the school will have capacity to
accommodate any families from De Beauvoir if that is what they
want. Colvestone was considered a
better school to merge being 0.4 miles and 8 minute walk away from
Princess May.
 
Option 5: Alternative options for
Colvestone primary
 
Merging Colvestone and Princess
May on the Colvestone site was
suggested however this option was considered unfeasible as the
Colvestone site is unable to
accommodate all the children from Princess May. The decision to
propose a merger onto the Princess May site is expected to
positively impact that schools' falling roll and unused
capacity.
 
Merging Colvestone with other
schools in the Blossom Federation was suggested however these
options were considered unsuitable due to the distance between
Colvestone and other schools in the
federation.
 
Merging De Beaviour and
Colvestone on the Colvestone site was suggested however, based on
pupil numbers at the time, Colvestone
appears to not be able to accommodate all the children from De
Beauvoir.  The subsequent drop in pupil
numbers at both schools makes this option feasible in terms of
pupil numbers, however this is not favoured due to Colvestone’s financial position.
 
It has also been proposed by those in support of
Colvestone remaining open, that it
could be a school for pupils with SEND. However in the short term
this option is unfeasible because the school would need to be
closed while building modifications and arrangements were made
requiring all children to move to other schools.  However all options regarding future use will be
considered for medium to long term should be school close as a
result of these proposals.
 
Option 6: Alternative options for Randal
Cremer Primary
 
Options for merging the school were considered but there
was no single school located near enough with the sufficient places
to accommodate all of the pupils. However, there are sufficient
schools nearby with surplus places that could accommodate the
pupils from Randal Cremer. Hoxton Garden, Sebright, St Monica’s and St John the Baptist
are likely alternative schools and all rated Good or Outstanding by
Ofsted.
 
Option 7: Alternative options considered
for Baden Powell Primary School
 
Options to merge Nightingale and other schools with surplus
places rather than Baden Powell, were considered.  This option was not progressed primarily because
Nightingale did not have capacity to guarantee all children at
neighbouring schools with surplus capacity a place, based on pupil
roll data at the time, and because the distance between these other
schools was less optimal than between Baden Powell and
Nightingale.