Proposals for the Reorganisation and Development of Catholic Secondary Provision in The

Appendix 2

Proposals for the Reorganisation and Development of Catholic Secondary Provision in the South and West Areas of Wigan

Consultation Meeting with St ThomasMoreCatholicSecondary School Staff held on 14 December at 3.45pm at the School

Present:Approximately 35 staff of the School

Frank CogleyLiverpool Archdiocesan Schools Commission

Tony CharnockLiverpool Archdiocesan Schools Commission

Tess LeylandLocal Education Authority (LEA)

Lynn MappinLocal Education Authority (LEA)

The meeting opened with a prayer.

Frank Cogley made the introductions. It was explained that this was the start of a formal process during which a series of consultation meetings would be held with staff, governors, parents and the public, governors of the three other Catholic secondary schools involved and governors of the St Thomas More feeder primary schools.

This stage was termed the informal consultation stage but it was also the most productive stage because it was a series of discussions with all interested parties. Formal legal requirements had to be followed, therefore a written record of the meeting would be made which would include any comments or questions from staff and similar arrangements would be followed for all the other meetings.

9th January 2006 was the deadline for receipt of any written comments on the proposals. All written comments received by the deadline and the notes of the meetings would then be submitted to the Archdiocesan Trustees, together with a report containing recommendations on how to proceed.

The situation at the moment was clear. The governors had asked for a managed closure of the school and the point that had now been reached made it difficult to turn that around. During this meeting, it was not intended to look at why the School was in the current situation – the consultation was on how best to move forward and achieve the managed closure.

It was important that the outstanding work of staff was recognised and that the needs of the pupils for a stable future with quality education was first and foremost in the list of priorities.

Recommendations from the Archdiocese would be submitted to the LEA and the LEA would determine its proposals for the future of the School. If it decided on closure it would publish statutory notices and a six week period of formal consultation would follow during which time written comments and objections could be made. The School Organisation Committee (SOC) for Wigan would take the final decision. Individual groups on the SOC cast one vote each and if a unanimous decision could not be made the proposal would be passed to the School Adjudicator for settlement.

Tony Charnock then presented the reasons for the proposal to close the School and activities leading up to the current date. The governors had made a very difficult decision with much regret and sadness to seek a managed closure. The proposal was to close the School in 2007.

There had been a series of discussions within the Archdiocese and with the governors of St Thomas More, Chairs and Heads of the three other Catholic secondary schools and the LEA on how best to continue quality provision for the pupils affected. The proposals represented the best that could be achieved within the circumstances. It was a priority not to disrupt their education during either of the key stages, hence the proposals for moving pupils at different dates. The year 8 and 9 pupils were the most difficult to plan for.

There was a guarantee that every child, regardless of their faith, would be offered a place at one of the receiving secondary schools, however, the preferred named school of parents could not be guaranteed. Parents could also express a preference for a community school if they wished.

Current year 6 pupils had chosen one of the three receiving schools as admissions documentation had explained the circumstances of St Thomas More. The Archdiocese had a policy for assigning parishes to schools and it had been decided that the best option was for parishes to be assigned as outlined in the consultation document.

The reasons for the closure were that St Thomas More had over 60% surplus places which made it imperative for the Archdiocese and the LEA to examine its long term viability and sustainability. It had also become a small secondary school struggling with viability issues to continue to provide quality education.

St Thomas More had not been receiving all of the Catholic children from its associated parishes for some time – around 50% chose to go elsewhere. From 1999, the trend for first preferences had been downward and last year only 40 first preferences had been received. The School had been attracting pupils from elsewhere, including non-Catholics, but these had been in insufficient numbers to compensate for the pupils lost.

Pupils numbers had declined across the Borough and a number of primary schools had been closed. These declining numbers were now affecting the secondary sector. The number of pupils in Catholic secondary schools had fallen from around 5,200 in 2001 to around 4,850 in 2005. This meant that other secondary schools had not been filling to capacity and that parents who preferred other schools could now convert the preference into a choice and gain a place for their child. The secondary school population in Wigan would decline significantly over the next 10 years and this included Catholic secondary schools. However, the decline was not consistent across all schools as some feeder primaries had seen dramatic falls in pupil numbers whilst others remained fairly stable. In the inner areas of Wigan, the school population had declined significantly whilst in the outer areas numbers have remained consistent.

The impact of the proposals for staff was outlined.

Some staff would leave naturally. Because of falling numbers and a declining budget some staff now found themselves teaching their second subject, placing an additional strain on them. Even if there was no proposal to close the School, falling pupil numbers meant that the number of staff would need to reduce. The LEA had been supportive and the staffing ratio at the moment was generous. The process for informing people about possible redundancies this year had already begun and this included both teaching and support staff.

The governors had decided that to manage the closure was better than leaving the School to die. The following help was available to staff:

• There was the opportunity for professional discussions around making applications for posts elsewhere and assistance with interview techniques;

• There was a need to retain a core of staff and the Archdiocese and the LEA were investigating ways in which staff could be encouraged to stay;

• The Archdiocese and the CatholicSchools had an agreement whereby schools would consider staff at risk and guarantee them an interview, if they fitted the person specification for a vacancy, prior to advertising the post. The Archdiocese had also written to all its schools across the Diocese to ask them for the same level of co-operation. It was important to stress, however, that the governors were responsible for appointing staff and the Archdiocese could only persuade and cajole, it could not enforce the procedure;

• The LEA would assist staff in finding jobs at alternative schools; and

• Unfortunately, some redundancies would be likely. The LEA had begun this process and the Professional Associations would help staff through it.

The timescale and process for the review was repeated. It was stated that the Archdiocese would need to take anticipatory action in advance of a final decision being made because it needed to secure the best interests of pupils. It was planned to meet with the parents of year 9 children in January to ask them, if the closure was approved, which school they would prefer for their child. This would be an informal process necessary because the Archdiocese needed an indication of where pupils would go so that they could be involved right from the start in choosing their GCSE option subjects alongside existing pupils of the receiving schools. It was important that the pupils had access to the full range of GCSE options and not be left with only those subjects where classes were not full. It was important that people recognised that this did not mean that the decision to close the School had already been taken and parents still had every right to object to the proposals.

The meeting was opened for questions:

Q(Teacher) Colleagues in special schools were talking about jobs being ringfenced. Why was this not happening here?

AIn the special school review it was a completely different set of circumstances as five schools were being closed and 3 new ones were being opened. Also, the legal position in voluntary aided schools was different as governing bodies were separate employing bodies so the Archdiocese could only put pressure on them to take staff, they could not enforce it. The Archdiocese had done as much as possible to persuade schools to co-operate and would continue to do so.

Q(Teacher) Was it not a consideration here to amalgamate 4 schools into 3?

ANo. Secure Catholic education had to be provided for the long term future and the governors asked for closure. There would still be redundancies in the special school review even though ringfencing was operating. Temporary governing bodies would be established at the new schools to determine the staffing structure and jobs at all the closing schools would end, with staff being interviewed for posts in the new schools. Staff were not guaranteed jobs. The process for other Catholic schools first considering staff at this School for jobs was already working. A headteacher in Skelmersdale has already contacted the School with a vacancy. The measures put in place for this review went beyond those for a School in a similar situation elsewhere in the Diocese.

Q(Teacher) So if St John Fisher had an English vacancy coming up they would interview anyone here who fitted the person specification before they advertised wider?

AYes – this was what had been asked for and the good will from other schools was in place.

QGive us an example where this had happened.

A(From a member of staff) There was a job at St John Fisher for a Spanish/French teacher and they interviewed me before it went out to wider advert.

QWould the Archdiocese take action if it were found that this was not happening?

AYes – there would be no hesitation in informing the School and the Professional Associations if this did not happen. Schools had obligations to each other.

Q(Support Staff) Did the procedures include support staff?

AYes.

Q(Teacher) So we shouldn’t see a job advertised in a Liverpool school before people here had been interviewed for it if they fitted the person specification?

AIt would take a while for the system to start happening and the lead in times for adverts in the press were long so some jobs could have been placed for advert before the schools got the letter. But in the longer term the system should start working provided that the governing bodies co-operate. Schools had been asked to contact Chris Cullen if there were any vacancies for teaching or support staff.

Q(Teacher) Was the same happening in the LEA with Community schools?

AAn alternative employment policy was in place. If schools had agreed to adopt it the LEA was monitoring them to ensure that they first considered all staff at risk for vacancies. There would hopefully be an increasing list of schools that had signed up to the LEA policy and/or the Archdiocesan request.

QWith regard to the admission criteria – how would this operate for Y8 and Y9 pupils when schools were oversubscribed?

AThere was a moral responsibility to find all pupils at the School, including non-Catholics, alternative provision. This did not take away the right of parents to express preferences for other schools. If one or more of the 3 receiving schools were oversubscribed based on the proposed increased admission numbers, admission criteria would be used to determine which children got places in their preferred school. Schools would increase their admission numbers by applying for an in-year variation for certain years to take these extra children. Each of the 3 receiving schools were full and some additional accommodation would be required at all of them to take the extra pupils. All 79 pupils could not go to the same school and it was hoped that parental preferences would even out amongst all 3 schools. If there was not an even spread, the published admission criteria of the schools would need to be used to allocate places. For future intakes to the schools the new arrangements for the associated parishes would operate.

Q(Teacher) Would St John Fisher take both of the St Thomas More parishes in the future, including this year?

AThe new associated parish arrangements would only operate from 2007 onwards. This year the allocation would be done depending on parental preferences and the current published admission criteria of the schools. The 3 schools were just concluding their admission processes and it should be known by the end of the week how it had worked out.

Q(Teacher) Would there be a requirement for more jobs in these 3 schools in the future?

AThere could be – at least 2 of them have said that they would need more staff. Other schools had also been told to first look at staff here for vacancies.

Q(Teacher) Some staff were quite expensive as they were at the top of their scales. They could be disadvantaged when applying for the same job as a NQT.

AIf schools decided that they wanted an experienced teacher then they would be willing to pay and they would have planned for it. At the moment, no protection was built in for expensive teachers.

S(Professional Association) Protection had happened in the past.

AThe LEA would consider it but the scale of the problem was not yet known so no decision could be taken yet.

Q(Professional Association) How did the alternative employment policy work? Did schools contact the LEA to find out if staff were at risk?

AYes – and the LEA would pass the information on to Chris Cullen. The reason that the LEA was here tonight was to support staff and provide consistency throughout the process. The LEA would write to schools to tell them of the School’s situation so that they were aware of it when filling future vacancies.

S(Headteacher) Three staff had obtained jobs through this process already.

S(Teacher) The School had been let down by both the Archdiocese and the LEA and both parties had some answering to do. Both knew of the difficult circumstances that the School had been in for some time and did not intervene.

AThe context of falling rolls within which the School was operating was unavoidable. Even if all schools were perfect, one or more schools would still be in a closure situation as pupil numbers had fallen so dramatically in the area. There was evidence that the School did attract pupils from beyond its parishes, particularly non-Catholics, because they considered it to be a better alternative to other schools. There were all kinds of reasons for shifting parental preferences.

QSurely pupils would not have chosen to come to St Thomas More in the past because of its reputation?

AThere had always been clear procedures in place for people to raise their concerns at the time that they occurred to them.

S(Chair of Governors) It was surprising that the early alarm systems did not kick in and a letter would be sent to the LEA and the Archdiocese about this. For instance, if there had been work with the School as soon as it had reached 25% surplus places there would have been more chance to turn the School around.

AThe Archdiocese had records of discussions that were held 3 years ago with the School on the number of surplus places and 18 months ago it was again brought to the attention of governors. The LEA had also been telling people about the issues for a long time.

QWhy was the issue not addressed when it could have been? Was it easier to leave it and just let pupil numbers fall?

APlease do not assume that actions were not taken years ago. It was not the easy option to leave the situation until it got to this stage.

S(Professional Association) The marketability of the School was not sold. The School did not compete for the additional funding that was around and did not keep pace with the rest of the market.

AThe Archdiocese could not suggest what the School should be doing. The School did compete for specialist status twice – once in 2003 when it was almost achieved, and around 8 years ago for sports college status, which was awarded to Abraham Guest High School.