Agenda item

Officers presented the report on the proposal to amalgamate Harefield Infant School and Harefield Junior School, from April 2026, in line with the new financial year.

This matter had first been considered in 2009, when a consultation took place and it was decided that this should be considered at a later date.

In 2022, an amalgamation policy was created and approved. This was important at the moment with falling school rolls and it was also important for schools to be more sustainable.

Officers had met with the Heads of the Infant and Junior Schools in summer 2024 to discuss the proposal.

Each school currently received a £159,662 lump sum. Amalgamation would lead to the loss of one of these sums. It was noted that where there were two head teachers, often the loss of funding coincided with the new school needing one head teacher rather than two. This case was slightly different. However, the funding drop would be gradual over a number of years, and not all in one go. The amalgamated school would also be in line with the same funding formula as all the other primary schools in the borough.

It was noted that there had been a reduction in pupil numbers over recent years. It was difficult for schools to be sustainable with small numbers. Looking at projections, this trend was not likely to change.

It was noted that efficiencies could be made elsewhere, such as through shared contracts, staffing and resources. School outturn positions suggest primary schools were more sustainable than separate infant and junior schools.

Members highlighted the large size of the SLT, compared to other schools. (Councillor Smallwood noted that he was a governor at another Infant School in the borough). There was currently an Executive Headteacher and a Head of School. This structure was more common in academy trusts. The financial benchmarking tool suggested Harefield had a relatively large SLT compared to similar schools. It was noted that decisions on SLT structure were for the school to decide. Harefield Infant School had 46.71 pupils per senior leadership role while other schools had up to 324 pupils per senior leadership role, according to the national benchmarking data.

Members asked about the impact on funding for children with SEND, noting some concerns from parents. Officers clarified that the direct funding change would be the removal of one lump sum only. Funding such as EHCP and pupil premium were linked to individual pupils and would not change as a result of an amalgamation. Any changes to funding would generally be as a result of changes to pupil numbers, which would also not be affected by the amalgamation.

Members asked for further information on funding and efficiencies. Officers noted that operating as one school can lead to more efficiencies than operating as two schools, such as one Ofsted registration and one inspection, one set of contracts (e.g. maintenance), and one officer manager, for example. Primary schools were generally more financially stable than infant and junior schools.

Members asked about amalgamations in Hillingdon compared to other authorities. Officers noted that many other authorities had moved the amalgamation policy forward, sometimes with forced amalgamations in other boroughs, and there were benefits to young people such as having a consistent journey from reception/ nursery to Year Six. Officers were of the view that now was the right time to take this forward.

Members asked why the Council was pursuing an unpopular proposal, noting that 97% of 552 responses to the informal consultation were in opposition. Officers responded noting that it was the role of Cabinet to make a decision on the proposal, and there would be improved financial sustainability and benefits to pupils. Amalgamation was expected to provide a consistent educational journey from Reception to Year Six. While the schools had made efficiencies, more could be made as one school. There were also benefits for young people including not having to transition from one school to the other and having consistent staffing and curriculum.

It was acknowledged that there had been concerns over selling buildings/ land or reductions to SEND funding. These were not part of the proposals.

Members asked about the timing of implementation. Officers noted that it was planned to implement in line with the financial year. Maintained schools work on a financial year from April to March and so it would be more challenging financially to convert in September. As the schools were already federated, the changes for pupils and families in becoming one primary school would be comparatively minimal for Harefield schools compared to others.

Members asked about pupil numbers and financial sustainability. Officers confirmed that amalgamation did not increase pupil numbers but improved financial sustainability.

Members noted the speed of the proposal and suggested deferring the item until the results of the formal consultation were known. Officers noted that there had been discussions ongoing since 2009, at which point it was decided to reconsider at a later date. That later date was now. It was reiterated that the final decision would be made by Cabinet. It was the role of the Committee to provide comments on the proposal.

Members asked how stakeholders were engaged in the consultation process. There had been three online events for the first informal stage. The formal stage included two face-to-face events and two virtual events.

Members asked about the link to falling rolls. Officers noted that amalgamation was not seen as a fix to falling rolls and was more about financial sustainability. Smaller schools were much harder to make financially sustainable. Some families may also prefer an all though school as there was no need to reapply for the Junior age and consistency in staffing, curriculum, and policies.

Members asked if the potential for efficiencies would outweigh the loss of one of the lump sums. Officers noted that decisions on staffing were up to the school, but there were the opportunities to make savings.

Members asked about support for the school post-amalgamation. Officers confirmed ongoing support from the Council and HR providers.

It was noted that the Committee would give comments to Cabinet, and it was for Cabinet to make the decision.

RESOLVED: That the Children, Families & Education Select Committee delegated comments for inclusion in the Cabinet report to the Democratic Services Officer in conjunction with the Chair and in consultation with the Opposition Lead