School closing breakfast and after school clubs

[Collaborate]

Hi.

I posted this on legal yesterday not realising there's an education section(!)

Seven months ago the board of governors at my children's primary school gave notice to the external extended school provider that they wouldn't renew their contract beyond this academic year. This week some bright spark had the idea that the parents (roughly a quarter of the school) should be told. There will be a hastily arranged meeting next week.

As far as I am aware, there are no plans in place to replace it. From my investigations so far I strongly suspect they might have planned to run their own scheme, but as far as I can see those plans haven't progressed. The LEA know nothing about it anyway, and if the school wants to run it's own scheme they'd have to seek prior LEA approval. I don't think any feasibility study has been carried out.

I have been busy this week researching the subject. From what I can gather, they have a duty to consult the parents over this. The Department for Education encourages schools to offer wrap around care, and I have a statement from Beverley Smith saying that the plan was to have all schools offering this by 2010.

I am hoping to be told at the meeting that they know they've cocked it up, are very sorry, and will ask the external provider to do another year whilst they consult with the parents about what plans they might have. I've asked for minutes of relevant governors meetings (I understand the governors merely approved the proposal, which was made by the Head) and hopefully when (or if) I see them I'll understand why on earth they thought it sensible to meddle with a service that scored 1s and 2s in it's OFSTED report. I fear however that will not be the case.

Does anyone have any ideas about schools responsibilities in this area that might be able to help me at the meeting? It promises to be quite interesting (!)

The guidance from the DoE that schools must consult with parents before developing extended services seems to cover this situation. I'm hoping that they'll accept that they've gone about things wrongly and will pull back from the brink, adopting proper procedures for change if they still feel the need to scrap the current excellent provision.

[AbigailS]

Have they said why they are planning to close? You say about quarter of the school go, so keeping it financially viable doesn't seem an issue. Can they actually get the staff to man it? (We really struggle and it's not manageable for teachers to have to help out long term, as we need to at the moment) Is the space to run it in still available? I know it can take a lot of time to manage and office staff have complained about the additional burden on their time without the funds for paid overtime, but that shouldn't be the final straw to close it. There must be a reason and I feel they really should be telling you that.

[Collaborate]

I asked on friday for copies of the agendas and minutes of all governors meetings at which this has been discussed so hopefully I can find out the reasons behind it. It's hugely popular, and I wonder whether they want to make a profit for the school. It's run in the dining room, so the space is always available. Up to a quarter of the existing school may have gone elsewhere had this provision not been available at the start. I know we would have. The school asked the LEA whether they'd have to TUPE the existing staff if they took over it themselves, and the advice that came back was that they would. They've told the existing provider since then that they don't intend to TUPE, so either they're going against LEA advice or they're making it up as they go along.

I think it's right that the school doesn't increase it's administrative burden, which is why getting an external provider to do it (the cover a dozen other schools) has worked so well.

I really need to see what reasons the governors were given, and find out whether they still apply. Fortunately I am speaking to one of the parent governors, and from what I've been told there doesn't seem to have been much discussion. There is a toolkit for decision taking available on the DoE website that certainly hasn't been used. Procedurally it's bee a farce.

[AbigailS]

Ahhh! Hadn't realised it was an outside provider. That could add other possible reasons. Maybe they have proved unreliable, maybe they have pulled out as it wasn't making them enough money. If the outside company has pulled out maybe the school has no option but to close the clubs or take it on themselves, and may not feel able to manage / staff it themselves.
Maybe an appointment to see the head, voicing that you wondered what the long term situation was so you can alter your child care arrangements, might clarify the situation. Let us know how you get on.
PS I didn't know you could demand minutes of governors' meetings, aren't some minuted items confidential?

[JWIM]

Governing Body Minutes are public documents. If there are confidential matters discussed - very limited circumstances for example admissions rankings if the Governing Body is the admissions authority - then they are minuted separately and not available for publication.

[PaisleyLeaf]

"the plan was to have all schools offering this by 2010"

I think offer is a bit vague. I don't think offer means provide.
DD's school sent out questionnaires asking who would use wrap around care/breakfast club etc and when. And that seems to be all they were obliged to do.

[mrz]

and since then we have gained a new government with a new agenda and schools got what was interestingly termed a negative increase in budget and all kinds of funding for services vanished almost overnight

[Collaborate]

The ext provider doesn't want to pull out. They are very popular with parents and there haven't been problems.

They can redact the minutes if there is sensitive information on it, but that doesn't cover something that might cause embarrassment to the school.

I'll make sure to report back.
:)

[TeamLemon]

Our breakfast club funding/subsidy stopped. Previously it was £2 a day for 8.15 to 8.45 care, with cheap oj, value bread/toast + jam and value cornflakes.
Now it is over £3 a day.
Numbers have dropped dramatically. That extra £1 sub made a big difference.

Sorry, just realised this doesn't help OP much!

[Rosebud05]

With all the funding/subsidy stoppages, is it possible that the breakfast and after school clubs are a financial liability for the school, however well attended they are?

[Collaborate]

It's a shame yours is being stopped. Funding of schools is changing. Breakfast clubs are needed for either working parents or for kids who might not get in to school on time or with a good breakfast otherwise. Funding for schools in areas with more social problems is due to increase. I'd challenge the decision if I were you. Get minutes of governors meetings (it's your right) and check their figures with the LEA. they also have a duty to consult parents, and can't fob you off by merely informing you of a decision they've already taken. It's one of my plans of attack!
I'm lucky that my school is in an affluent area, so the kids club is self funding.

[Collaborate]

Rosebud: they pay rent enough to cover heating etc and share the cost of dining room furniture. If it's a question of the school actually losing money they should ask for more rent, but the DoE says that schools should be offering wrap around care. This is a set up that should be held up as an example to other schools.

[grendel]

I think it's in the 2006 Children's Act that schools need to offer wrap around care if there is sufficient demand from the parents. The previous govt had a target that all schools - where a demand exists - should offer this care by 2010. By 'offer' it means that schools can either provide the care themselves or via a third-party provider.

Since there is clearly already a demand for wrap-around care, as proved by the existing very popular before and after school club, it would seem that the school is breach of this Act if they close down the external provider but don't offer an alternative themselves.

[Collaborate]

Thanks for that. S6 of the Childcare Act 2006 imposes on the LA a duty to provide Childcare for parents who work. Will be useful if we have to appeal to the LEA! Can't provide breakfast care anywhere other than at the school. At the moment the school are saying we must call the LEA and they will give us tel numbers if child care providers. This is one of the things that has me on the warpath.

[neolara]

I don't think each school has to provide childcare. I'm not sure exactly what the terminology is, but I think it is legit for schools simply to ensure that their is available childcare locally and that their children can access it. For example, some schools around here do not have an afterschool club, but they will walk children over to the site of a different school which does have a club.

[Collaborate]

I think you're right. However where a school's provision works very well, the LA won't be happy that they close it, and they can I think overturn the decision on an appeal.

[NerfHerder]

Who is Beverley Smith?
Do you mean Beverley Hughes? Who was minister for CYPF under the last government?

I think you'll find the DfE are having a complete U-turn on anything the DCSF said!

[Collaborate]

Freudian slip! She's had her 15 mins of fame!

It's still on the DoE website, so presumably still official policy. It also costs schools nothing, so this gvmt will like it!

[NerfHerder]

Yes- but it makes it possible for women to work... so this govt won't

[mrz]

Duty to secure sufficient childcare for working parents
(1)An English local authority must secure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the provision of childcare (whether or not by them) is sufficient to meet the requirements of parents in their area who require childcare in order to enable them?
(a)to take up, or remain in, work, or
(b)to undertake education or training which could reasonably be expected to assist them to obtain work.
(2)In determining for the purposes of subsection
(1) whether the provision of childcare is sufficient to meet those requirements, a local authority?
(a)must have regard to the needs of parents in their area for?
(i)the provision of childcare in respect of which the child care element of working tax credit is payable, and
(ii)the provision of childcare which is suitable for disabled children, and(b)may have regard to any childcare which they expect to be available outside their area.
(3)In discharging their duty under subsection (1), a local authority must have regard to any guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State.(4)The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (2) (and subsection (6) so far as relating to that subsection) so as to modify the matters to which a local authority must or may have regard in determining whether the provision of childcare is sufficient.
(5)Except in relation to a disabled child, this section does not apply in relation to childcare for a child on or after the 1st September next following the date on which he attains the age of 14.
(6)In this section??child care element?, in relation to working tax credit, is to be read in accordance with section 12 of the Tax Credits Act 2002 (c. 21);?disabled child? means a child who has a disability for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (c. 50);?parent? includes any individual who?
(a)has parental responsibility for a child, or
(b)has care of a child.

basically if there is other childcare available that is considered discharging their duty

the current providers may be happy to continue but it could well be the school can no longer afford to employ them to do so.

[admission]

There are all sorts of cans of worms here and without knowing all the details it probably not going to be very easy to sort out but some things are clear.
The school does not have to have any provision they simply have to signpost you to suitable provision. But having given formal notice to the current provider, if they have any intention of continuing the provision then they will have to abide by TUPE regs. To not do that is just inviting substantial claims against the school and this is what needs to be impressed on the Governing Body. If they do not follow their guidance then they will suffer the consequences.
This sounds remarkably like a head teacher who rules the roost, with a supine governing body and that is going to lead to tears. I would make sure that the LA know this meeting with parents is taking place with a request for them to send someone to comment on what is said.

[Collaborate]

Receipt of the minutes of the governors meetings suggests that unspecified safeguarding issues have lead to the decision to terminate the contract. However the OFSTED report contemporaneous with these concerns scores them 1 for safeguarding. Will find out tomorrow evening (hopefully) what precisely these issues where. Presumably from time to time all schools have to deal with safeguarding concerns.

The overwhelming feedback I've had from parents has always been positive.

Admission: I've asked the LEA manager to attend the meeting, but they spoke to the school who said they weren't needed (!). They say they would have come to help out, but they can't come without the permission of the school.

mrz: "3)In discharging their duty under subsection (1), a local authority must have regard to any guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State" The most recent guidance is contained a document entitled "governance guidance for surestart childrens centres and extended schools" which bangs on about consultation with parents and the fact that every school should offer access to extended services by 2010.

[prh47bridge]

This is quite an old document. A couple of points:

• "3)In discharging their duty under subsection (1), a local authority must have regard to any guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State". Note that this talks about the LA having regard to the guidance. It does not say the school must do so.
  

• "every school should offer access to extended services". That is not the same as saying that every school should provide extended services. As the document makes clear, they can meet this obligation by hosting external services or facilitating access to other services (which can be as simple as publishing a list of childminders).
  

• If someone at the school wants to be picky, they could point out that, whilst this document does indeed bang on about consultation, it only actually requires schools to consult before they develop extended services. It does not contain any specific requirement to consult before closing extended services. I agree that they should consult but the document is not clear on this point.
  

I am somewhat puzzled by the LEA manager saying they can't attend without the permission of the school. Is this a community school?

Don't get me wrong. It sounds to me like the school are messing up. But the regulations and guidance in this area are somewhat weaker than was claimed by the previous government.

[Collaborate]

I would argue that any change in the provision is a development of the extended services - albeit a negative one.

I take your point about the guidance, but it is mandatory in that the school MUST have regard to it, so to ignore it means they haven't had regard to it, and the decision is therefore open to challenge. We'll see, but I strongly suspect we'll have to take this to the LEA.

[mrz]

(1)An English local authority must secure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the provision of childcare (whether or not by them) is sufficient to meet the requirements of parents in their area

The whether or not by them is significant and remember the duty to ensure that there is sufficient childcare in the area doesn't directly lie with schools but the LEA.

[Collaborate]

That's right. Lots of developments today and some cans of worms opened. Meeting in an hour! Will report back.