Category: Schools

Local girls’ school consulting on joining a Multi Academy Trust

Carshalton High School for Girls (CHSG)  is consulting on joining the Nonsuch and Wallington Education Trust  (NWET).   Consultation documents are available on the Trust website.

Nonsuch High School for Girls and Wallington High School for Girls formed NWET nearly two years ago, and if  CHSG joins, it will continue the Trust’s focus on girls’ education.   It is the intention of the Trust to change its name to ‘Girls Learning Trust’.

It is expected that the consultation and due diligence will be completed end November/early December when the Governing body of CHSG and the Board of Trustees of NWET will meet to make the decision to take the proposal forward to the Department of Education.

Open sessions to be held at CHSG will take place mid-October (dates and times to be confirmed) at which time parents and cares of pupils at the school will be able to meet the Headteacher, Mrs Jones, and the Chair of Governors, Mr Harding, to hear more about the proposal and to ask questions.

Local Trust set to expand

Greenshaw Learning Trust (GLT) has been in discussions with the Department for Education (DfE) and Academies Enterprise Trust (AET) about the possible transfer of Millbrook Academy, located in Brockworth, Gloucestershire, to GLT.

Commenting on the potential transfer, Will Smith, CEO of GLT said:

We believe the Greenshaw Learning Trust is well placed to help accelerate the improvement of standards at Millbrook Academy.

As part of the Greenshaw family of schools, Millbrook will collaborate closely with, and gain the support from, like-minded school that are locally based.

The Greenshaw Learning Trust has the experience and capacity to provide the support Millbrook needs for the next phase of its development.

Julian Drinkall, CEO of AET said:

The DfE has confirmed that Greenshaw should be well placed to help Millbrook through the next phase of its development, and we are working closely with Greenshaw’s team to ensure an orderly transition for pupils, parent and staff.

The Greenshaw Learning Trust is made up of secondary and primary schools in South London, Bracknell, South Gloucestershire and the Forest of Dean.

The Sutton schools in the GLT family include: Greenshaw High School; Tweeddale Primary; Victor Seymour Infants School and Green Wrythe Primary School.    In March 2015 Greenshaw Learning Trust received approval from the DfE to open a new secondary school in Sutton and in February 2016 further approval was given for an ASD base.

Subject to GLT’s due diligence process, and negotiations with the DfE, the Millbrook Academy will join the Trust on 1 January 2018.  In the meantime, GLT will be working with the leadership of Millbrook and AET to prepare the school for transfer.

Another document goes missing

Well, what a surprise!  Between Sutton Council and the Council’s company, Sutton Education Services Ltd (SES), a document has been lost, or perhaps it never existed in the first place, who knows?

In a report to be presented to the Sutton Shareholdings Board on 20 September 2017, written by the managing director of SES, it is confirmed that ‘there is no record of a correctly signed copy’ of the Shareholders’ Agreement.   This, readers will remember, is the document that needs to exist in signed form, for the ‘B’ Shareholders of SES to become shareholders.

This document joins a growing list of documents that have been lost at Sutton Council.

Wonder if anyone has checked the back of the sofa?

B Director vacancy to go unfilled for now

Well, it is now confirmed that the ‘B’ Shareholders of Sutton Eduction Services Ltd, who thought they were shareholders and only found out last week that they were not (or rather that’s Sutton Council and the company’s interpretation) are not able to appoint to the vacancy for a ‘B’ Director on the Board of Sutton Education Services Ltd.

In an email sent today (18 September 2017) by Tracey Burley, Managing Director of Sutton Education Services Ltd, she says:

… there is a vacancy for a B Director on the Board of the Company.  Ros Sutton has received nomination for to fulfil this role.  If the  Shareholders Agreement were in place, Ros Sutton would co-ordinate a response from B Shareholders to approve this appointment.  For the reasons stated above we are not currently in a position to move this forward at present, however, we are keen to have B Director representation as soon as possible.

Ros Sutton is one of the two ‘B’ Directors appointed in January 2017 at a meeting of ‘B’ Shareholders, along with Alan McInosh, who resigned from the post in July 2017.

The question still remains, how can ‘B’ Shareholders who are not shareholders, hold a ‘B’ Shareholder meeting and elect two B Directors?  Given what the Council and the Company have revealed so far, what is the legal status of the remaining B Director?

Who appointed the Directors?

How did ‘B’ Shareholders of Sutton Education Services Limited (SES) appoint two Directors if ‘B’ Shareholders don’t exist?

It was an Officer of Sutton Council that confirmed that the ‘B’ Shareholders of SES could not participate in the vote to change the name of the company, because the ‘B’ Shareholders didn’t actually exist.  He said:

During the presentation given on the 17th July, Tracey [Burley, Managing Director of SES], explained that the Shareholders Agreement is currently in draft and is unsigned by any party.  In addition, it was clarified that some potential shareholders had not paid the £10 nominal share value or correctly signed their Deed of Adherence or in some cases not undertaken to complete both requirements.

Whilst the absence of a signed Shareholders Agreement may appear to be a technicality, this means in reality that the Company must act in accordance with the adopted Articles of Association and the Companies Act.  In effect this means that the Council is the only current shareholder.

What is troubling about this statement is:

  • Sutton the Inside is aware of some schools in Sutton have submitted the signed form and paid the £10.  The fact that other schools that said they would be interested but have not yet submitted their forms/money should not be a barrier to those that have, from becoming shareholders.
  • A school that has submitted the relevant signed form and £10 fee in January 2017 has confirmed to Sutton the Inside that they have not been advised that their paperwork was not correctly submitted nor their status as a ‘B’ Shareholder was in doubt.
  • An attendee of the meeting on the 17 July 2017 has told Sutton the Inside that no reference was made at that briefing to the fact that the Shareholders’ Agreement being unsigned was a barrier to share-ownership.
  • That if it is true that the ‘B’ Shareholder category has never been established and Sutton Council is the only shareholder, how is it that two Directors were appointed by ‘B’ Shareholders?
  • In addition to the briefing meeting of 17 July 2017, Sutton the Inside has been made aware of two other meetings of ‘B’ Shareholders, one held on 26 January 2017 and another on 8 March 2017. If this group of Shareholders doesn’t exist, how could a meeting of this group take place?

Sutton the Inside has asked Sutton Council, through an FOI request, for clarification on the status of the Directors, appointed by ‘B’ Shareholder.  Additionally information is being sought on where the decision was taken that made the signing of the Shareholders’ Agreement a prerequisite of ‘B’ Shareholding.

When is a shareholder not a shareholder?

It seems that completing and signing the relevant document (Deed of Adherence), and paying the prescribed fee of £10, is not enough for Sutton Education Services to accept those Sutton schools choosing to participate in Sutton Council’s latest company, as Shareholders.

The issue of the status of what is called ‘B’ Shareholders came to light when Sutton Council published a decision notice concerning the change of name of the company to Cognus.  A few ‘B’ Shareholders, surprised not to have been sent details of the resolution, made enquiries.

Sutton the Inside has seen an email sent by Gerald Almeroth, Strategic Director, Sutton Council,  in which he states:

Whilst the absence of a signed Shareholders Agreement may appear to be a technicality, this means in reality that the Company must act in accordance with the adopted Article of Association and the Companies Act.  In effect this means that the Council is the only current shareholder.

Now that’s interesting, because the Shareholders’ Agreement, and the signing of it, was never, according to ‘B’ Shareholders Sutton the Inside has spoken to,  a prerequisite to becoming a ‘B’ Shareholder.

Further from the Shareholders’ Agreement that Sutton the Inside has seen, it looks like the agreement is between Sutton Council and the Company.  That being the case, it would seem that it is the Counci that is delaying the formal recognition of ‘B’ Shareholders. If correct, then the Council could go on for as long as it likes not signing the agreement and thus preventing the Sutton schools that have paid to become a shareholder of  this company, from becoming a shareholder.

All this is, of course, is true if one accepts the notion that a shareholder is only a shareholder once the Council has signed the Shareholders’ Agreement.   It would seem by any normal logic that once a school has signed the agreement and paid the fee, they are a shareholder.  The fact that the Articles of the company are unclear about how the relationship between the ‘A’ and ‘B’ shareholders work, does not prevent those schools applying under the ‘B’ shareholder category from legally becoming shareholders.

Sutton Council and Sutton Education Services Ltd seems to have got themselves into a bit of a pickle over this.  In an email sent by Gerald Almeroth he says:

This issue was discussed at CMT today where we considered a range of measures to strengthen the arrangements and governance of Council/shareholder interests in companies either wholly or partially owned by the Council.  This will include potential arrangements for company secretarial support that will help to reduce the likelihood of this instance happening again.

It has to be asked why there was not adequate company secretarial support for these companies in the first place and why the Council is only now looking at a range of measures to strengthen the governance.

Finally it is worth noting that whilst the ‘B’ Shareholders were not actually shareholders, they elected two directors to be part of the Board of SES.  What now is the status of those two Directors?

 

 

School planned for Sheen Way

Notices have popped up around the Sheen Way concerning the proposals for the new school.

On 17 July 2017 Sutton Council’s Strategy and Resources Committee agreed the principle of a 125 year lease for a school development at Sheen Way, Beddington.

The lease would be for a Special Educational Needs School to be built by the Education and Skills Funding Agency (EFA) and the Orchard Hill College and Academy Trust.

The notices, which ask residents to get in touch with Cllr Mattey, claim the proposed building will be half the size of High View, will mean the loss of open space, will double traffic, create parking problems, will bring HGV traffic during the build and will adversely affect house prices.

The Council noted that the final boundaries for the school and site layout are yet to be agreed.  The Strategic Director of Resources, in consultation with the Lead Member for Resources, has been given delegated authority to undertake and ‘conclude such negotiations and instruct solicitors to incorporate the outcome as necessary in the lease and any legal agreement required to document interests in the land’.

Finally the Council requested the EFA conduct ‘early feasibility work with residents’ involvement on transport and access issues and the feasibility of constructing the school on this constrained site’.

The approach the Council is taking over this school is a far cry from how it is handling the school on the former Sutton Hospital site.

For that school the Council has done everything it can to lead the project.  It engaged consultants, paid professionals to draw up plans and ran consultation meetings.

Not that any of that was necessary.  Through the EFA, central government approves the education provider, does all the preparatory work associated with building the school and funds the construction works.

Honey, I shrunk the school

This is the story of the vanishing school places.

In a report to Sutton Council’s Children Family and education Committee on 26 June 2014, on the issue of a new secondary school, reference was made to a 10 forms-of-entry (FE) school with a 2 to 3.5 year lead time for delivery.

By 12 March 2015 the same committee was updated on the progress of the new school. The report to the committee said:  ‘The All Weather Pitch site in Rosehill and the Sutton Hospital Site in Belmont were the two sites that came forward as a result of this process’, this process being a site search, and that  ‘Feasibility studies are being carried out on both sites to assess the likely costs, deliverability and viability of the sites to provide sufficient provision for an 8FE secondary school including 6th form provision.’

Two forms of entry have disappeared.

Twelve days later Sutton Council issued a delegated decision for the purchase part of the former Sutton Hospital site and by 30 March 2015 the Council announced that it had ‘bought a site in Belmont from Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals Trust in order to build a new secondary school’.

Moving on to 1 October 2015, as part of the verbal feedback to the Committee, a Council Officer said that there would definitely be a need for one school and likely a second, but that the speed with which the the second will be needed would depend on the size of the first school.

This would seem to be the first hint that the Council was reconsidering the 8FE proposition.  However, later that month, on 13 October, the Council reported to the AGM of the Partnership of Sutton Secondary Schools that 8FE was still on the agenda.  The Council Officer said  “it is not impossible” to get an 8FE school on the site.

Technically true but it was obvious to most people involved in the Sutton education community that the site bought by the Council was too small for the initially proposed 10FE school and also for the reduced size 8FE, unless the Council ignored its own planning policies.

A month later and things have changed again.

In an email to the Heads and Chairs of the Partnership of Sutton Secondary Schools, Sutton Council on 19 November 2015 said:

“Based on the feedback from the EFA [Education Funding Agency] and GLT [Greenshaw Learning Trust] regarding an 8FE school on the hospital site as well as general concerns raised by the local community, we would expect that any new Free School applications will be made for a smaller secondary school (up to 6FE)”.

In the Education Briefing published in February 2016 the Council called on education providers to put forward proposals offering 195 places plus a 300 place sixth form.

So that’s the journey from 10FE to 6.5FE via 6FE.

In the process a loss of 105 school places.

Not the very best start

On 29 June 2017,  London Borough of Sutton Councillors voted in favour of the planning application for a secondary school on the former Sutton Hospital site in Belmont.

The school needs to be open for children to start in September 2018.

It won’t be.

There is now not enough time to get the school built.

So children will have to start their secondary school years in temporary accommodation.

Sutton Council has been talking about the need for a new secondary school as far back as 2012.    There has been a significant expansion in primary school places which one might reasonably assume would lead to a similar demand for secondary school places.   Former Cllr Anisha Callaghan recognised this and is reported to have raised this issue at a meeting of the Council’s Children, Family and Education Committee on Thursday, November 15, 2012.

The best part of five years later Sutton Council finally announces that it has given planning permission for the new school.

Cllr Wendy Mathys, Chair of the Children, Families and Education Committee at Sutton Council, said in a statement issued on 3 July 2017, following the planning decision:  “As a council we are passionate about giving our young people the very best start in life by providing the opportunity to learn in an environment which will offer a first-class educational experience”.

Well the young people starting at the new school on the former Sutton Hospital Site are not going to get the very best start, the very best start would be going into a finished school, not into temporary classrooms.

The abject failure of the leadership of Sutton Council to adequately fulfil its strategic responsibilities and plan for appropriate school places to be available when they are needed, is shameful.

When it was clear that the expansion of existing schools (a plan incidentally, proposed by the Partnership of Sutton Secondary Schools), was not going to meet the need, there was still time to get a new school built.

The Council agreed the purchase of the land in March 2015.  Park for a moment the issue of whether the size of the site was big enough for the proposed eight form of entry school, which the Council had in its plans, the land was bought and technically available to Sutton Council to pursue their planned new school in 2015.

Further, Paul Burstow, former MP for Sutton and Cheam, tweeted in March 2014 that he was discussing the new school.  He was pictured with a document that looks like plans and in the company of the Leader of Sutton Council, Cllr Ruth Dombey, and the former Schools Minister, David Laws.  It is perhaps worth noting that the Council Elections took place in May of that year.

Perhaps the Council’s obsession with creating a Life Sciences Cluster/Cancer Hub (based on the proximity of the Royal Marsden Hospital and the Institute of Cancer Research to the school site) so dominated their thinking and decision making that they lost sight of the fact that children needed a school.

So whilst anyone interested in education in Sutton will be pleased with the news that the Council has finally got planning permission for the much needed school, it is tainted by the knowledge that children will be in temporary accommodation for their first year in school, and that this did not need to happen.