The Norwich Co-operative Learning Trust
(NCLT)
Including
Bignold Primary School and Nursery
Cavell Primary School and Nursery
Lakenham Primary School and Nursery
Tuckswood Primary School and Nursery
In partnership with
Harford Manor School,
The Hewett School
&
The Co-operative College
Statutory Representation Report
Full Governing Body Meeting
25th November 2013
1
Overview
This document summarises the feedback from The Norwich Co-operative Learning Trust
(NCLT) statutory proposals period. The consultation was supported by Sean Rogers from the
Co-operative College who has produced this report.
The reports on the consultation process and also on this statutory representation period has
been written against the following regulations and accompanying statutory guidance.



The Education and Inspections Act 2006 (sections 18 to 24.)
The ‘SOPAM’ Regulations 2007; ie The School Organisation (Prescribed Alterations to
Maintained Schools) (England) Regulations 2007); ( ‘The Regulations’) and
‘Trust School Proposals; A Guide for Governing Bodies and Local Authorities’ ( ‘The
Guidance’), to be read in conjunction with ‘Changing School Category to Foundation (A
Guide for Governing Bodies)’.
The Regulations specify who is to be consulted (para 5 of Schedule 1). As the Guidance says
(para 42), the Regulations do not otherwise prescribe the consultation to be carried out but the
Guidance itself says that ‘the Governing Body should consult all interested parties, allow
adequate time, and provide sufficient information for all those being consulted to form a
considered view on the matters on which they are being consulted.’ This is statutory guidance
so governing bodies must have regard to it, when consulting on proposals (regulation 8.) The
SOPAM regulations need to be followed and both sets of statutory guidance need to be
considered when making changes and these are covered in the executive summary below and
in more detail in Appendix A.
Executive Summary
The Governing Body of each of the consulting schools is the decision maker for these
proposals. The only exception to this is Cavell Primary School and Nursery where the
Governing Body has been removed by the Local Authority during the statutory representation
period and replaced by an Interim Executive Board (IEB). We are legally advised that as an IEB
is not a permanent governing body it therefore is unable to determine the proposals for its
school. Only a permanent governing body has powers to do so. Obviously the IEB will wish to
keep the situation under review. One possible alternative would be for the IEB, who presumably
will wish to continue to work formally in partnership with the other six schools, to request that if
some or all of the schools go ahead and establish the Trust, that Cavell Primary School and
Nursery becomes a full partner in the Trust.
No representations were received during the statutory period. This is being provided separately
to each governing body concerned.
It now falls to the Governing Bodies of each of the three remaining consulting schools, namely
Bignold, Lakenham and Tuckswood Primary School s and Nurseries to make a decision about
whether or not to implement the proposals. The statutory guidance defines the criteria to be
considered by the decision maker and these are summarised in the documents as follows.
The requirements of the Trust statutory guidance are:
a) That the Trust meets legal requirements.
b) That consultation was adequate – the governing bodies met the requirements set out in
regulations and had regard to consultation responses. If the governing bodies have failed to
meet the statutory requirements for consultation, the proposals may be deemed invalid and
therefore should not be decided.
2
c) Evidence that the Trust:
i)
Is likely to contribute to raising standards at the schools;
ii)
Is likely to promote community cohesion.
d) Trust members and proposed trustees (where the trustees are specified in the proposals)
are not involved in activities that may be considered inappropriate for children and young
people – e.g. tobacco, gambling, adult entertainment, alcohol.
e) The reputation of Trust members and proposed trustees (where the trustees are specified in
the proposals) is in keeping with the charitable objects of a Trust.
f) Trust members and proposed trustees (where the trustees are specified in the proposals)
are not involved in activities which could bring the schools into disrepute, but would not
otherwise be disqualified under regulations.
The Foundation statutory guidance also covers points a) and b) (above) and includes a further
element:
g) Decision Makers should consider how proposals will contribute to local diversity and national
transformation strategies.
Each of these points is addressed below
a) That the Trust meets legal requirements
The proposed Trust will meet legal requirements and the work is underway to establish the
Trust with exclusively charitable objectives. The proposals demonstrated how the legal
requirement to promote community cohesion could be achieved and the co-operative
membership will actively assist this process. The structure of the Trust meets the requirements
of proposed members and trustees and none of the proposed trustees are disqualified persons
and processes will be in place to ensure that this remains the case in the future.
b) That consultation was adequate
Following the consultation, which included all the required elements, the Governing Bodies of
Bignold and Lakenham Primary Schools and Nurseries met to consider the consultation
responses and the issues raised on 16 October 2013. The Governing Body of Cavell Primary
School and Nursery, because of the particular difficulties it was having with the LA, had met
previously on October 10th. The Governing Body of Tuckswood Primary School and Nursery
had been inquorate on the evening of October 16th, due principally to the illness of its
Headteacher and also its Chair of Governors. The Governing Body subsequently reconvened in
an urgent meeting the following Monday evening ( 21 October) At each of these meetings each
of the four Governing Bodies separately examined a report which discussed the consultation in
detail. (The report which went to Cavell’s Governing Body is slightly different in some of its
content when compared with that which went to the other three governing bodies.) Each of the
four consulting governing bodies decided that the requirements for consultation had been met
and there was no serious disjuncture between the weight of opinion (which was supportive of
the proposals) and the proposed action and they published a Statutory Notice in the Eastern
Daily Press on October 23rd 2013 as well as issue the Statutory Proposals. ( NB. Cavell’s
Statutory Notice was published a week earlier on October 16th 2013 and its Statutory Proposals
were issued the same day.
At Bignold, Lakenham and Tuckswood, it had been decided not to formally seek the views of
learners until and if each school proceeded to the statutory stage. Views were sought informally
via assemblies and through other appropriate mechanisms, such as school councils. There was
3
general support for the proposals at each school.
Tuckswood also found itself in the unusual position that no written responses were received
during its consultation exercise and no parents attended the consultation meeting for
parents/carers, although staff and other stakeholders associated with the school did attend the
respective staff and public meetings. This being the case the Governing Body decided at its
reconvened meeting of October 21st to seek the views of parents and other stakeholders by
further questionnaires. The results of this exercise will be tabled on November 25 th.
c) Evidence that the Trust is likely to raise standards and promote community cohesion
There is clear evidence from OFSTED reports of the existing co-operative schools nationally, as
well as regionally, that the co-operative dimension provides benefits in terms of curriculum and
community cohesion. There are a range of curriculum materials available to the schools and the
membership dimension of the Trust will encourage participation and promote the ethos and
culture of each school and the Trust to address national and local agendas through local,
national and international engagement with the co-operative movement. The Local Authority will
continue to challenge and support the school and take an active part in helping the schools and
the Trust address national agendas. The schools and the Trust are committed to working in
partnership.
d) Trust members and proposed trustees are not involved in activities that may be
considered inappropriate for children and young people;
e) The reputation of Trust members and proposed trustees is in keeping with the
charitable objects of a Trust; and
f) Trust members and proposed trustees are not involved in activities which could bring
the school into disrepute, but would not otherwise be disqualified under regulations.
The proposed partners are not involved in activities that are considered inappropriate and their
reputation is in keeping with the charitable objects of the Trust. The membership and
stakeholder elements of the Trust will add to the strength of purpose and local accountability
and support. There will be processes and procedures in place to ensure Trust members and
Trustees meet legal requirements and would not be disqualified under regulations and
appropriate checks will be undertaken for those involved with the Trust
g) Decision Makers should consider how proposals will contribute to local diversity and
national transformation strategies.
As discussed in the Consultation Report the proposal contributes to the diversity of provision
and the national transformation strategies. See also section c above.
Other issues
The nature of the co-operative trust is such that it strengthens and supports the schools via the
membership model and the partners who will contribute towards the future development. There
is support available to the Trust to develop the membership and stakeholder model and this
engagement with parents, pupils, staff and the local community will further support the Trust
and the schools and is a strength of the proposed Trust.
Recommended Action
The governing bodies of the four consulting schools have already separately considered the
consultation, determined that the consultation was adequate, and considered the views of those
consulted. Each Governing Body decided that there was no serious disjuncture between the
4
weight of opinion (which was supportive of the proposals) and the proposed action and they
published Statutory Proposals.
It is accepted that Cavell being in Special Measures, is in an OFSTED intervention category.
However as evidenced by its two HMI termly monitoring visit it is clear that it is making good
progress at the required speed. It very good Year 6 SATS result also attest to the strong
progress the school is making. It is also clearly highly challengeable as to the Local Authority’s
justification for the removal of its governing body, in terms of quality of governance, the
effectiveness of its school improvement strategy and indeed in the context of this consultation
exercise and indeed the widely accepted lack of evidence for the effectiveness of the academy
model in such situations. Through these proposals Cavell was seeking to access another
equally valid school improvement structural solution. It is clear that the Local Authority has
embarked on a blanket policy of ‘forced academisation’ for all Norfolk schools in Cavell’s
situation, notwithstanding a legal requirement to treat a school’s situation separately – on its
merits. The Local Authority’s use of its powers of removal in Cavell’s situation is also
challengeable in that there is already case law which states that the use of such powers simply
to achieve a sponsored academy is not appropriate.
It is also anticipated – for the reasons set out earlier in this report, that Cavell Primary School
and Nursery is not currently able to determine the proposals and that its IEB may therefore
request to become a partner in the Trust after it is formed. Ultimately it is hoped that its
governing body will be restored and that it will be able to join the Trust fully with the Trust as its
legal foundation.
No representations beyond the views of the Pupil Councils of Bignold, Lakenham and
Tuckswood have been received during the four week period allowed for representations and the
Proposals have not been referred to the Schools Adjudicator. It can be seen from the above that
the necessary statutory considerations have been met.
The Governing Body of Tuckswood Primary School and Nursery has been issued on October
4th 2013 with a Performance Standards and Safety Warning Notice by the Local Authority. In the
Notice no reference whatsoever is made to that the fact that the Governing Body is engaged in
this legal consultation process to make a structural change to the school and to form the a cooperative school trust, with the other five named local schools and the Co-operative movement;
with an overweaning aim of further raising standards and levels of aspiration and thereby
attainment across all the named schools, including Tuckswood. The Governing Body has made
formal representations to OFSTED and at the time of writing ( noon on Wednesday November
20th 2013, which is the closing date and time for statutory representations,) no representations
around the Statutory Proposals has been received from the Local Authority. It is also important
to note that if the Authority has the concerns about standards which are indicated in the
Warning Notice, then under The ‘SOPAM’ Regulations 2007 and the two sets of Guidance for
Decision Makers referred to in the ‘Overview’ section (page two) of this report, it clearly should
have followed these regulations and accompanying guidance by referring these proposals to
the Schools Adjudicator, thereby taking away the ability of the Governing Body to make a
decision and allowing the Schools Adjudicator to make the decision based on the evidence
submitted by the Local Authority and the Governing Body.
Similar arguments can certainly be advanced for Cavell’s Governing Body where it again it can
be strongly argued that under these regulations and accompanying guidance a similar process
should have been followed. It can also be argued that in removing Cavell’s Governing Body
when it was so far along the road in a statutory consultation process then the Local Authority
has inappropriately and unreasonably, perhaps indeed unlawfully, interfered in a legitimate
consultation process and frustrated the ability of stakeholders to have a say in these matters.
5
The same could also be said in the threat within the Warning Notice to Tuckswood’s Governing
Body to possibly remove it.
There is also a legitimate view to be advanced that by interfering is such a way in the
consultation process for both Cavell and also Tuckswood, that the process and logic for the
proposals for the Governing Bodies of the other two consulting schools, namely Bignold and
Lakenham has been seriously undermined, certainly not helped and that this also amounts to
interference in a statutory process they were engaged in. The two governing bodies of the two
founding partner schools, namely Harford Manor and the Hewett School, who were not
consulting as they already have separate foundation trusts which act as their legal foundation,
also are entitled to feel aggrieved by the Local Authority’s actions in this matter insofar as they
are affected.
The Co-operative College would strongly recommend that all those identified take appropriate
legal advice as to their situation separately and jointly in this situation. With regard to Cavell its
Governing Body has been removed for the time being and whilst it had previously agreed to set
aside a sum of money to seek legal advice, that has been frustrated by the Governing Body’s
removal and the imposition of an IEB. However the school’s removed governors, its staff,
including their professional associations and trade unions, and indeed other stakeholders,
particularly parents and carers, also have legal rights. As pointed out above so do the other
schools indentified. In this regard it is important to note the collecting at very short notice of over
1,000 signatures to a petition, plus the fact that the school’s consultation response rate at over
30%, was by far the highest we at the Co-operative College have ever encountered in our
considerable experience in such consultation exercises.
It is recommended;
i) that the Governing Bodies of Bignold Primary School and Nursery, Lakenham Primary
School and Nursery and Tuckswood Primary School and Nursery, all approve the Proposals as
set out with the proposed Implementation Date of December 2nd 2013. Each should also
authorise the associated changes to its Instrument of Government as set out in Appendix 3.
ii) for Cavell Primary School and Nursery, as it is presently being governed by an Interim
Executive Board (IEB), which is legally unable to determine these proposals, it is recommended
that it notes the report and its contents and considers whether it wishes to in the near future,
formally join the Trust as a partner. Ultimately it is hoped that its governing body will be restored
and that it will be able to join the Trust fully with the Trust as its legal foundation.
iii) that the Articles of Association as recommended to the Governing Bodies by the premeeting of the Chairs of Governors and Headteachers be accepted
iv) to consider any other action relevant to the new situation created by the removal of Cavell’s
Governing Body during the statutory representations period, as well as the Warning Notice
issued by the Local Authority to the Governing Body of Tuckswood In particular that that all
those identified in the report who have a legitimate interest in the four identified consulting
schools and the two founding partner schools, along with the Co-operative College
(representing the co-operative movement), establishing The Norwich Co-operative Learning
Trust, take appropriate legal advice as to their situation separately and jointly.
v) To delegate any other urgent matters pertinent to the enactment of these proposals to the
Chair of Governors of each of the schools, in consultation with its Headteacher.
6
APPENDIX A. Determination by the Decision Maker on the Proposals to convert to a
Foundation school and the acquisition of a Trust
Criteria for Approval
Characteristics of the proposed Trust:
a. The proposed Trust is not seeking to acquire or alter the religious character of the
schools.
b. The process to establish the Trust as a company limited by guarantee is underway with
the intention also to become a Charitable Incorporated Organisation.
c. The proposed objectives of the Trust are to be wholly charitable with the objective to
promote the advancement of education of the learners of the schools.
d. The Proposals clearly set out the mechanisms by which the Trust will promote
community cohesion.
e. Should the Local Authority become Members of the Trust they shall have no greater than
20% of voting rights.
f. Proposed Trustees - at the Implementation Date - are confirmed as not being disqualified
from exercising their function either by virtue of:
I. Disqualification under company or charity law;
II. Disqualification from working with children or young people;
III. Not having obtained a criminal records certificate under section 113A of the Police
Act 1997;
IV. The Schools Organisation (Requirements as to Foundations) (England) Regulations
(2007/1287) (as amended) which disqualify certain persons from acting as charity
trustees.
g. The Proposals are for the Trust to appoint a minority of Trust governors to the Governing
Bodies of the schools for which it wil act as the legal foundation.
Consultation:
A full, open and wide-ranging consultation has taken place on the proposals, with sufficient
information and the allowance of adequate time for comment. Approximately 2800 consultation
documents were distributed during consultation. Meetings were held for interested parties
including staff, pupils, parents and the public. There were 162 response forms returned within
the designated consultation period, of which the great majority were supportive - only 4
responses indicated opposition to the proposals A full report on the consultation was prepared (
including an individual one for Cavell),and all responses were fully considered by each
Governing Body prior to issuing the Statutory Proposals. The publication of the Statutory Notice
in Eastern Daily Press was on October 16th for Cavell and October 23rd for the other three
consulting schools.
Representations:
There were no representations received during the Statutory Period, other than those received
form the Pupil Councils of Bignold, Lakenham and Tuckswood. Correspondence was received
at both Cavell and Tuckswood from the Local Authority regarding the position of their Governing
Bodies. These are referred to in the report but are included in any appendix to this report as
7
they did not see refer to or seek to address the proposals.
Standards and Diversity:
A) Through the acquiring a Trust the school will be supported by a partnership of The Cooperative movement (at this stage represented by the Co-operative College), Harford Manor
School plus The Hewett School, and Bignold Primary School and Nursery,
LakenhamPrimary School and Nursery and Tuckswood Primary School and Nursery, in
ensuring achievement is further raised and a coherent provision made available across all
phases of education.
B) The rationale for acquiring the foundation and the ethos that it will bring to the school can be
summarised as:
“The Norwich Co-operative Learning Trust ” partner organisations plan to work in
partnership and collaboration with our schools. Forming the Trust body formalises that
working relationship and ensures that relationships survive changes of personnel, for the
benefit of all schools in the wider area acquiring the same Trust.
As an inclusive partnership we celebrate all that makes each partner unique and share a
vision and a common set of values. The Trust will seek to build on and strengthen, by
formalising and further developing, the joint working already well-established within the
Hewett cluster of schools.
"The Norwich Co-operative Learning Trust” will ensure a high quality learning experience
from 0-19 for young people in their community of Norwich East and surrounding area. The
Partnership will work closely with our community to raise aspirations, create opportunities
and contribute fully to the life of the community. The creation of the Trust will provide a
strong and well-tested legal entity through which to collaborate with our partners for the
benefit of our learners.
Key aims for our Trust are to:
• Further improve outcomes for all our learners in all our schools with strengthened focus
on school to school self improvement
• Support each school to become and then stay outstanding
• Strengthen our ability to work collaboratively and co-operatively to enable our schools to
grow, develop and improve together
• Formalise and further develop arrangements already in place for joint working
• Develop further the skills and expertise of staff across the schools
• Further share resources and skills across the schools
• Further increase levels of aspiration across our school communities thereby impacting
positively upon standards.
a) Membership of the Trust will make a difference to learners, staff, our parents and carers,
the institutions working together and to the local community. It is expected that Trust
membership will increase in future years and that the benefits will become available to a
larger number of participants.
The Co-operative Movement
By becoming a co-operative trust, – The Norwich Co-operative Learning Trust will become part
of the global co-operative family. We will become members of the Schools Co-operative Society
( SCS), the national network of co-operative trusts, and work with the Co-operative College to
identify a suitable long-term co-operative partner for the trust. The Co-operative College has
extensive experience in both the general school sector and the co-operative trust sector. They
support the national and regional networks of co-operative schools, of which The Norwich Co8
operative Learning Trust will be part. They will also help bring a global dimension to the schools
and assist in establishing national and international links with other co-operative organisations.
It is also anticipated – for the reasons set out in the Executive Summary of this report, that
Cavell Primary School and Nursery is not currently able to determine the proposals and that its
IEB may therefore request to become a partner in the Trust after it is formed. Ultimately it is
hoped that its governing body will be restored and that it will be able to join the Trust fully with
the Trust as its legal foundation.
The school partners within the Trust will focus upon a number of key issues:
School improvement strategies - by working together we will be able to raise performance in
the core subjects plus extend the capacity of the schools.
Lifelong community learning – through the Trust we hope to provide high quality support for
all stakeholders, including learners s, parents, teachers and members of our school immediate
communities.
Raising aspirations – using the expertise of the partners we hope the Trust will open avenues
for all stakeholders to develop learning pathways with appropriate stepping off and on points.
Through a focus on school to school models of school improvement, a local 'community eye'
view of how to more effectively (via commissioning) deliver on the Every Child Matters Agenda
against a local 'Children's Plan,' and by virtue of growing increasingly strong local roots through
membership engagement, we would expect to see aspiration and achievement improve,
particularly so in some of the more socially deprived communities served by the schools. Being
school owned and run, the services brokered and provided via co-operative school trusts, are
making money go further (very important in a time of declining resources) as well as being
more effective in terms of impact. Vitally school owned co-operatives provide what schools
need, not what someone else thinks they need - and co-operatives school trusts do not seek to
'short change' their schools. Any savings via joint procurement etc, will stay in the local school
system, not be extracted from it by the market/private sector.
Bignold Primary School and Nursery, Lakenham Primary School and Nursery and Tuckswood
Primary School and Nursery together with Harford Manor School and The Hewett School, will
be defined and reinforced through their partnerships and their association with the co-operative
movement, initially represented by the Co-operative College; Partners will share management
and strategic experience and expertise with all tiers of leadership and management through the
Trust. Partners will bring their local and national network contacts for the benefit of the school;
and Partners will support the raising of standards through mentoring.
The Trust will raise standards through the creation of a platform for on-going improvement. The
resources and expertise brought to the Trust by the partners will strengthen strategic
leadership, increase support and challenge and consolidate effective monitoring, thereby
bringing about rapid improvement in outcomes for students.
b) The proposals support the greater personalisation of education and offer greater diversity
of choice for parents.
c) Partners all support raising attainment and aspirations for all groups of learners by
providing support from a range of partners to engage young people and their families in
achieving these goals.
Community cohesion:
The Trust Partners are committed to improving community cohesion and ensuring there is
cultural respect and tolerance between different groups of people living together. The Trust will
strategically develop opportunities for all students to succeed to the highest levels by removing
9
barriers to access and participation in learning and by engaging with other partners, parents and
wider communities both nationally and globally
Reputation of Trust Partners/Organisations and Trustees:
Governors are satisfied that the Partner Organisations and the individuals that represent them
are of sound reputation and standing and do not pose any risk at this time to the integrity of both
the schools or Trust’s charitable objectives.
So far as can be determined, no Partner Organisation or Trustee is involved in such activities
that could be deemed as inappropriate for children or young people.
Additional matters of consideration:






The proposed Trust does not already act for any other school
The proposed Trust partners already have informal relationship with the schools. All
partners have both formal and informal relationships with other schools
The proposed partners all have links to the local community.
The proposals identify support for the Governing Bodies by the appointment of 2 Trust
nominated governors to each school for which it will act as the legal foundation.
The Trust has identified Trustees that can provide leadership experience to build
capacity in the schools ensuring the raising of standards.
The Trust involves a range of partners to improve progression routes through all phases
and into higher education for pupils as well as improving attainment in its member
schools and beyond.
APPENDIX B. Representations Received.
None received, other than feedback from the 3 Pupil Consultations by the time of writing
(Wednesday November 20th 2013). This will be presented to the Governing Body of the
appropriate schools for its consideration. See also note above about the further responses at
Tuckswood.
10
Appendix C: Proposed Reconstituted Governing Body Composition.
Bignold
Designation
Parent
Staff
Headteacher
Community
LA
Associate
Foundation
Co-opted
Total
Current
2
3
1
0
1
0
0
6
11
Proposed
2
1
1
0
1
0
2
4
11
Current
5
2
1
4
3
0
0
0
15
Proposed
2
1
1
0
1
0
2
5
12
Current
4
2
1
4
3
0
0
0
14
Proposed
5
1
1
0
1
0
2
4
14
Current
4
3
1
4
3
0
0
0
14
Proposed
4
1
1
0
1
0
2
3
13
Cavell (for noting)
Designation
Parent
Staff
Headteacher
Community
LA
Associate
Foundation
Co-opted
Total
Lakenham
Designation
Parent
Staff
Headteacher
Community
LA
Associate
Foundation
Co-opted
Total
Tuckswood
Designation
Parent
Staff
Headteacher
Community
LA
Associate
Foundation
Co-opted
Total
11