National Middle Schools’ Forum
Models for future collaboration
within three tier systems
Background paper for Conference Session
Tuesday 21st October 2014
Nigel Wyatt
October 2014
NMSF - Briefing Paper
Models for future collaboration within three tier systems
An opportunity to share developments within three tier systems around the
country, and to debate the future direction of middle school systems within the
changed educational landscape.
Rationale:
A lot has happened in the three years since we held a Day Conference in the March 2011 to consider
the implications of the then new academy programme for three tier systems :
Special Day Conferences 2011
Building Successful Partnerships
Exploring the possibilities for effective collaboration presented by
federation, trust and academy status
Conference 2014 provides a valuable opportunity to revisit the day conference’s central theme and
to consider the current how middle school systems have evolved and some of the issues they now
face. The threats may have changed, but then so have the possibilities.
Issues:
A) Current threats to middle school systems.
Review of the difficulties encountered in middle school systems in the last few years
– and more recently from the implementation new School Organisation Regulations
2014.
Summary - page 3
---
Newspaper reports -page 5
B) Developing successful partnerships in middle school areas
Sharing recent experience of new partnership models in three tier areas.
Academy models – page 12
C) Proposal in letter from David Laws to Redditch MP Karen Lumley.
Considering a response to David Laws concerning a review of the Guidance for the
new School Organisation Regulations suggested in his letter to the MP for Redditch.
Letter from David Laws - page 11
2
A) Current threats to middle school systems
Summary of recent history
Academy Schools seeking to change their age range
So far we have seen a number of proposals for a change of age range many of which have not gone
ahead – but by their very nature they difficult to counter for the schools closely affected and
unsettling for others nationally.
The unplanned and chaotic change in the Houghton Regis area of Central Bedfordshire is an object
lesson in the damaging effects of such proposals.
Areas where academy schools have consulted about changing their age range:
1) Shelley College - Kirklees - fed by two 10 to 13 middle schools - Scisset Middle
(Outstanding) and Kirkburton Middle (Good with outstanding features). Outcome: parents
campaign persuaded local MP to withdraw support for the proposed change and it stopped.
See newspaper report page 5
2) West Somerset College, Minehead – proposed change of age range when the very small
Dulverton Middle School declared that it was no longer viable financially and sought primary
school status. Minehead Middle then proposed to take children through to 16 in response.
The schools have recently agreed a ‘truce’ which should help the schools move forward
together. See newspaper report page 5
3) Corfe Hills Upper School, Dorset – Proposed change of age range and catchment area
following Broadstone Middle failing its Ofsted. Poole and Dorset LAs appear to have
persuaded the school to agree to a 12 month moratorium to allow for discussions and
negotiation.
4) Frome College, Somerset – Was facing forced academy proposal which the DfE broker
insisted would require change to 11 to 18. However the broker backed down as a resulted of
united opposition from all the first and middle schools. A three tier sponsor school was
found.
Areas where change has, or is about to, take place:
5) Kings Houghton Middle School – Central Beds - became 11 to 16 after failing its Ofsted
when it was taken over by Greenwood Academy Trust (forced academy). Chaotic change in
the area has finally led to a proposal to close the three other middle schools in the area whose pupil numbers are projected to fall below 100, as schools around them change to two
tier. School affected Streetfield, Brewers Hill and Ashton Middle Schools in Dunstable.
See newspaper report page 7
3
6) Northamptonshire – It was threat of the Prince William Upper School in Oundle becoming
an academy in the near future with the declared intention of changing its age range that
appears to have spurred Northamptonshire County Council to consult on a managed change
of age range. They clearly wanted to avoid the unplanned and chaotic change in the
Houghton Regis area. See newspaper report page 9
7) Redditch, Worcestershire – Kingsley College (upper school) in Redditch became an
academy in March 2014, joining the Tudor Grange Academy Trust – an academy chain run by
Tudor Grange School in Solihull. Renamed Tudor Grange Academy, Redditch, it announced
its intention to consult on changing its age range at the end of May. So here is a community
school that has been taken out of local control and now wishing to unilaterally undermine
the other schools in the area. Some of the Redditch schools have mounted an effective
opposition and the local MP has been on local BBC news asking for a delay to any plans to
allow time for an area wide way forward.
See newspaper report page 10 & Letter from David Laws page 11
8) Suffolk – Suffolk’s long running reorganisation plans have become much more complex as
they attempted to reorganise the last area in Bury St Edmunds. The existence of the Bury St
Edmunds Academy Trust, providing a unified system from 4 to 18 within one academy trust
has frustrated the county’s efforts to reorganise the whole county. As the Academy Trust
website suggests, “While other schools locally prepare to move to a two-tier system, our
schools have already reorganised into the forward looking All-Through system. As a result, all
the schools in our Trust are able to focus solely on our core mission of helping every pupil to
reach his or her potential by providing a seamless education from 4-19.” County Upper
School, which is part of the trust, is the best performing secondary school in Suffolk.
9) Northumberland – The Ashington Learning Partnership has just decided two reorganise
its schools to a two tier system, with Bothal Middle School and Hirst Park Middle School set
to close in July 2015. The first, middle and high schools within Ashington formed the
federated Ashington Learning Trust in 2007, and share one governing body which has
decided on the change, with the support of the LA. There are three other first schools, not
part of the federation, but part of the Ashington Partnership, have agreed to the change of
age range.
School Organisation Regulations 2014
In January changes to the school organisation regulations were introduced. While lobbying during
the consultation phase led to some small helpful changes, the principle aim to simplify the steps
needed to reorganise schools in an area, or for successful academy schools to apply to change their
age ranges remains.
The procedure to be followed - set out in this document:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/275456/Making_S
ignificant_Changes_to_an_Existing_Academy_Guidance_2014.pdf
Recently however David Laws, the Schools Minister, gave some helpful clarification in a letter to the
MP for Redditch dated 26th June 2014. In particular the letter sets out more clearly the factor the
EFA would need to consider in deciding whether to agree a proposal for a change of age range. He
also seems of offer the prospect of some review of the guidance.
4
Annexe – Newspaper Reports and other sources.
1) Shelley College - Kirklees
Shelley College expansion plans to be withdrawn after dramatic 24 hours
CONTROVERSIAL plans by Shelley College to accept students from aged 11 are set to be dropped.
The college planned to expand in 2014 but Scissett Middle School and Kirkburton Middle School
feared the expansion to 2,100 students would cause them to lose pupils and eventually close.
Parents in the area opposed to the changes led a passionate campaign to try and keep Kirklees' only
three-tier system and tonight it appears they have won.
After being contacted by more almost 1,000 concerned people this week Dewsbury MP Simon
Reevell said today he would not support Shelley College's plans to expand and would, in fact,
attempt to block the proposals.
He also urged Shelley College headteacher John McNally to withdraw the proposals.
When contacted by the Examiner this afternoon Mr McNally replied with a statement which reads: "
In a statement released last night, Mr McNally said: “Shelley College is committed to a fair and
democratic process, and is aware of the level of opposition to our current proposal. “I will meet
with our governors next week and recommend that the proposal is withdrawn. “The governors will
reach a decision and the correct procedure will be followed. “As stated in all our communications,
the views of parents and stakeholders would influence our decision – and this has been the case.”
. See here - http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/shelley-college-expansionplans-withdrawn-4939175
2) West Somerset College, Minehead
Truce struck over school admissions?
Thursday, 10 April 2014
A truce could be called in the ongoing battle over school admissions in the district, with West
Somerset College widely expected to drop plans to take pupils from the age of 11 in Minehead.
College principal Gaynor Comber and Minehead Middle School headteacher Paul Rushforth are due
to make a joint statement on the issue when they return from the Easter break later this month.
The college had been consulting on proposals to lower its intake age to accommodate year seven
and eight pupils - a move initially designed to take children from Dulverton.
In response, Minehead Middle School announced it would investigate upping its age range to 16 and
offer a range of mainstream GCSEs in direct competition with the college.
Somerset County Council added to the mix by declaring plans to turn Dulverton Middle School into a
junior school, turning All Saints First into an infant school and linking to Kingsmead Community
School in Wiveliscombe rather than the college.
But rumours of a climbdown have been circulating since the last college governor’s meeting.
Somerset Labour Party secretary Andy Lewis attended the meeting and said he and other members
of the public had been asked to leave when the thorny issue of admissions was discussed.
In an article on the Somerset Labour Party’s website, Mr Lewis said he understood the college had
now dropped proposals to accommodate year seven and eight children.
This, in turn, meant Minehead Middle School no longer wanted to extend its age range upwards,
thereby maintaining the status quo.
5
“School and college governors in West Somerset appear to be backing down from plans that would
have brought damaging fragmentation of education in the district,” said Mr Lewis.
“The change follows a campaign by the Labour Party – which urged governors to work together in
the interests of all children.
“In another sign of peace breaking out, it is understood that the school and college will have
representatives on each other’s governing bodies.
“A governor from the Middle School will be able to speak and vote at West Somerset governors’
meetings, and visa versa.”
His claims appear to be supported by a document on the college website which forms an official
response to Minehead Middle School on the subject of admissions.
In it, the board of governors said they had no intention of teaching year seven and eight pupils at the
college.
It states: “If we change our age range it will only be with a view to educating year seven and year
eight students on the Dulverton site in the event that Somerset County Council determines that
Dulverton Middle School should cease to exist or should cease to provide education for years seven
and eight.
“If for any reason we are prevented from delivering on the Dulverton site, we will work with our
partner schools to find a sensible way of providing key stage three education within the West
Somerset system for students from the Dulverton Middle School catchment area who wish to
progress to the college for key stages four and five, always bearing in mind the need to minimise the
educational and other costs associated with multiple transitions.
“We will not enrol any year seven or year eight students with a view to educating them on the
college site.”
Mr Lewis said it appeared that the college and Minehead Middle School has stepped back from the
brink of what could have been a “disastrous battle”.
“It would not have made sense to have two schools half a mile apart competing to attract pupils in
the same age range,” he said.
“There now seems to be a recognition that co-operation, not competition, is the way forward for
education in this area.”
No date has been given for when Mrs Comber and Mr Rushforth’s joint statement will be made, but
both schools return from the Easter break on April 22.
Source: http://www.west-somersettoday.co.uk/news.cfm?id=12417&searchWord=truce&searchYear=2014
6
5) Kings Houghton and Dunstable
'No alternative' to planned school closures in Dunstable
3 May 2014
A consultation on plans to close three middle schools in Bedfordshire has "not identified viable
alternative options", a council has said.
Ashton, Brewers Hill and Streetfield schools in Dunstable could be closed due to falling numbers,
with a single academy created instead.
The majority of respondents were opposed to each school closing.
Central Bedfordshire Council's overview and scrutiny committee is due to discuss the results on
Wednesday.
Under current plans, all three schools would close and the Brewers Hill site could become an
academy for four- to 18-year-olds from September 2015.
'Impact on budget'
Based on current pupil numbers, Streetfield could be teaching just 75 children in September 2015,
the council said. Its capacity is 520.
Brewers Hill, which could potentially teach 480 pupils, would only have 102, with Ashton could be
left with the same number when it has facilities for up to 620.
Reasons given by respondents for the schools to stay open - including that Brewers Hill was a "good
school", and that Streetfield had "good facilities" - did not resolve the problem, the council said.
It added there was no demographic demand for Streetfield's governors' suggestion that the school
should become a primary, but said Ashton's proposal to close and become a secondary school would
go before its executive committee at the end of May.
The historic significance of the school building, which dates from the 1880s, was highlighted as a
concern.
Of each school, the council said: "The main issue remains, which is the future viability of the school
due to the reduction in pupil numbers and therefore the impact on the school's budget.
"This has direct implications on the future ability of the school to continue to provide a broad,
balanced and appropriate curriculum to all pupils, and sustain improvement."
The next course of action will be decided at the council's executive committee meeting on 27 May,
with a final decision due to be made in August.
Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-27203253
7
6) Northamptonshire
Wednesday, February 12, represented an important date in the history of King John
School in Thrapston.
On that evening, a “consultation” was conducted involving Northamptonshire local education
authority, parents and the many other concerned parties.
One could be forgiven for thinking that a school, highly regarded in the area, demonstrating strong
historical academic achievement, with a pupil population in excess of 400, recently highlighted by
Ofsted as “good with outstanding features” and serving a rapidly growing community, set to
increase its population by 25 per cent, should escape the axe.
However, to think that would underestimate the council’s determination to eradicate middle school
education in the area and in doing so, reap the profits of selling-off the resulting real estate to
developers.
Northamptonshire County Council is already in the process of disposing of land acquired from the
closure of 16 schools in Northampton, valued at some £90m and with King John, Thrapston in their
sights, look set to break the nine-figure mark.
In addition, the school some eight miles away destined as the future base for Thrapston’s 11 to 13year-olds and criticised by Ofsted as “requiring improvement”, has aspirations to achieve academy
status.
A move which conveniently suits Northamptonshire County Council very well, given that they can
effectively wash their hands of any financial responsibility for its future funding.
Effective financial management is clearly and understandably a competence all local authorities
need to demonstrate.
However, surely they also have an obligation to provide, and maintain the provision of the highest
possible standards of education.
The inability to identify or communicate any tangible educational benefits associated with this
proposal, combined with the ridiculously short period of time given to parents to prepare for the
public consultation, clearly demonstrates a flagrant disregard for the interests and needs of the local
population to whom they should be accountable.
Unsurprisingly, Northamptonshire is currently languishing in the lower reaches of the national
league tables for education.
Also of interest is the fact that the shiny new academies are currently amongst the poorer
performers in the region.
One can only assume that the rigorous pursual of a policy that sacrifices quality of education in the
interests of financial gain will only serve to propel the county to even greater depths.
Paul Woods
Thrapston
Source: http://www.northantstelegraph.co.uk/news/opinion/letters/school-plans-disregard-localopinion-1-5878321
8
7) Redditch
Redditch Standard, 2 July 2014
GOVERNORS at Tudor Grange Academy Redditch have delayed a decision on whether or not to
proceed with their bid to expand the school's admission age.
A meeting was held on Tuesday (July 1) to discuss progressing the Woodrow Drive school's proposal
to take children from the age of 11 to the next level by applying for permission from the Education
Funding Agency.
The move has met with a storm of protest from parents and politicians who fear it will destabilise
the town's middle schools and lead to the creation of a two tier education system by stealth.
But in a short statement headteacher Stephen Brownlow confirmed governors had not made a
decision and were continuing to read and discuss the consultation feedback received.
"They will make a decision in due course and will of course keep the local community fully
informed."
The news comes as Redditch MP Karen Lumley claimed the proposal was already dead.
A letter from Schools Minister David Laws said the proposed date for the admission change could
not happen in September 2015 because the Department of Education had to be informed of
admission arrangements for the next school year by April this year.
He also pointed out any reduction in pupil numbers could result in objections to the Schools
Adjudicator from anyone in the community including the local authority. It is understood
Worcestershire County Council has raised concerns about the move leading to a shortage of
secondary school places.
Mr Laws added any academy school wanting to change its age range would need changes to its
funding agreement with the EFA which would have to be satisfied adequate local consultation had
taken place, responses had been taken into account, the financial case was sound and planning
permission, if necessary, had been secured.
Mrs Lumley said: "I have said from the start that these proposals were not right for our town at this
time. I’m glad I can now say to Redditch parents with certainty a change will not be happening."
But Rebecca Blake, Labour's Parliamentary candidate for Redditch, said while she welcomed the
pause in the process it was too early to hail the campaign as a success and called again for TGAR to
work with parents and the county council to work together to come up with a plan and a timeline
the majority of the town could get behind.
"The genie is out of the bottle with three other schools consulting on a change of age range and the
absence of co-ordination will be to the detriment of our children's education. Having no plan for the
future of education in Redditch is as good as planning for failure."
Source: http://www.redditchstandard.co.uk/2014/07/03/news-Governors-still-to-decide-onadmission-change-110436.html
9
C) Proposal in letter from David Laws to Redditch MP Karen Lumley.
Text of letter from David Laws to Karen Lumley, MP
Karen Lumley MP
House of Commons
London
SW1AAA
26 June 2014
Subject: School reorganisation proposals in Redditch
Thank you for raising your concerns about local proposals relating to admissions and school
organisation in Redditch and the impact of individual proposals from certain academies including
Tudor Grange Academy.
I understand that you recently met with officials at the department for Education and confirmed
that the schools involved have accepted that it will not be possible to make the proposed changes
for September 2015. This is because their admission arrangements would have had to have been
determined by 15 April 2014 in order for them to do so. It was also confirmed that any change of age
range proposals, which also envisage a reduction in published admission number, are subject to the
possibility of objections to the Schools Adjudicator, from anyone in the local community, including
the local authority.
Finally, any proposed change of age range at an academy would need to be confirmed through
changes to the academy’s funding agreement. In agreeing such changes, the Education Funding
Agency would need to be satisfied that adequate local consultation had taken place, that
consultation responses had been taken into account, that financial arrangements were sound, and
that appropriate planning permissions and relevant agreements had been secured where necessary.
I can confirm that in the light of the issues you have raised, the Department intends to clarify this
position in the school organisation guidance to ensure it is clearly sign-posted for all future cases.
Officials will continue to work with the Education Funding Agency and the newly appointed Regional
Schools Commissioners to ensure that issues like this are picked up quickly and that appropriate
action is taken.
Yours sincerely
David Laws MP
10
B) Developing successful partnerships in middle school areas
Different academy models
Converting as a single school
Schools that want to convert as a stand-alone academy need to demonstrate that they are in a
strong enough position to do so. We will look at the following criteria to decide if you are
performing well enough to convert:





the last 3 years’ exam results, which must be above floor standards, and whether they are
above, or moving towards national averages
comparisons with exam performance in similar schools and those in the local area
the most recent Ofsted inspection, which must show that you are an outstanding school or
that you are good with outstanding features - we will look in particular at what Ofsted says
about the school’s capacity to improve and the effectiveness of the leadership team
assurance that the school is in good financial health
any other information the school thinks would help their application and any exceptional
circumstances that we should be aware of
If you’re converting as a stand-alone school you will be expected to support another local
school when you become an academy.
The multi-academy trust (MAT)
One academy trust whose board is ultimately responsible for running two or more academies. The
academy trust has a master funding agreement with a supplemental funding agreement for each
academy. The MAT may include primary and secondary schools, which may chose to convert at different
times.
11
key features
 a MAT is a group of academies with one legal entity
 it has three levels of governance – Members, Board of Directors and Local Governing Bodies
 the Board of Directors has ultimate responsibility for running each academy and will deal with
the strategic running of the MAT
 the Board then typically delegates day-to-day running of each academy to a local governing
body (LGB). The level of delegation can be different for each academy
 funding is allocated on an individual academy basis
 single employer, shared buying and sharing resources within the group
practical considerations
 MAT model most likely to be appropriate where there is an existing relationship and level of
trust between schools
 DfE likely to require this structure for schools where they identify a need for substantial
improvement and require schools to receive significant amounts of support
 approach is suitable for schools that want to collaborate at all levels through the organisation
 concerns can arise regarding feelings of loss of autonomy
 balancing loss of autonomy with the benefits of support and sharing of resources is key
The umbrella trust (UT)
Each academy has its own academy trust and these are connected through a shared 'umbrella trust'. This
approach can be similar to a group of trust schools which share the same trust. The role given by the
founding schools to the 'umbrella trust' can differ significantly between umbrella trusts.
12
key features
 each academy in the UT will have its own academy trust ('AT'). Separate legal entities, with two
levels of governance members and governors
 each AT has its own governing body and enters into its own funding arrangements
 all academies within the group will be linked by an overarching UT – which will also have is own
separate legal entity
 the UT does not have direct management of the academies, the UT will usually have right to
appoint governors
 each Academy is responsible for their own governance and performance, subject to the
arrangements under this model
 many UT’s have a partnership Agreement which sets out how the UT and ATs within the group
will work together
practical considerations
 allows VA and VC schools to collaborate with other schools
 this model is attractive to schools who wish to retain independence and have a directly
accountable governing body
 the Academies under the UT can benefit from shared collaboration and procurement of services
 geographically close schools which already share a joint vision and support may find this model
attractive to formalise those arrangements
 school need to consider the arrangement to ensure they are comfortable with the balance
between accountability for school improvement across academies within the UT and power to
take action

Collaborative partnership (CP)
This is the loosest form of academy collaboration. These arrangements are similar to a maintained
school’s formal partnerships, where each academy trust signs up to a collaboration agreement that sets
out how the academies will work together and how joint activities are funded.
13
key features
 each academy is completely separate (separate Academy Trust) and only linked together to the
extent set out in the Collaboration Agreement
 loosest group of working models and can be as light touch or as formalised as required.
Collaboration agreement can be very simple or more refined, depending on your
circumstances
 flexibility in the model to allow the schools involved to decide when, where and how they
implement collaboration ideas or plans
 CPs may have joint committees to look at strategic issues
 examples of collaboration include: mentoring of SLT, sharing facilities, loaning staff, sharing
staff
practical considerations
 unlike MAT or UT models a CP can very easily involve all types of school
 it is a way of collaborating without changes in control, Collaboration Agreement can be tailored
to your need
 likely to be appropriate where schools can convert on their own but want to establish a more
formal partnership for the first time
 a potential pitfall is that there in not a strong enough bond to deal with difficult situations
within the partnership
14