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.

Please tell, I like worms!

Me too!

OK. Just finished the appeal to the governors. Head glossed over the lack of consultation. Said today was the start of it(!).

Safeguarding issues were significant, yet the school never told the parents about them until tonight (judge for yourselves how petty that is then) and Head seemed uncomfortable when pressed about the letters she must have written to the provider about all her concerns. I've asked for copies

The plan is for the school to start from scratch now, and set up new child care from September (that the head promised would be at least as good as the existing provision). They need LEA approval, and will need to show it's financially viable, so will need a business plan or viablilty study. Don't think this has been looked at yet in detail.

In short, I'm asking for a stay of execution while we consult, and, if appropriate, to give the school time to set up their own. They'll never do it in time.

Sorry, there are "significant safeguarding issues" regarding your children and you want the current providors to be given a "stay of execution"!

I wouldn't.

Sorry - meant to say that the claim was that there were significant SG issues, yet the only one we're told about is trivial and easily corrected by the school speaking to parents, and there are in fact no others. Of course they have to deal with SG issues all the time, and their SG score for their OFSTED report was outstanding (last academic year). Some parents happy to put their trust in the head, others sceptical that equivalent provision can be put in place by September. Nearly all miffed at no consultation. Down to the governors tonight and if it looks like we'll have no "core offer" by September we'll have to ask the LEA to step in.

I would be extremely concerned if the school discussed serious safeguarding issues with anyone as they would be breaking the law.

The one mentioned above was the only one. All of the others are routine safeguarding incidents that were properly recorded and dealt with by the external provider in accordance with their procedures (ranked by OFSTED to be excellent). They can give enough information out about these issues whilst keeping the participants anonymous. If it's happening to our afterschool, and affects it's continued existence, we're entitled not to be kept in the dark and fed crap.
The previous liaison officer from the LA was the subject of a request from the school to be replaced as she was biased in favour of afterschool. Isn't it supposed to be a partnership? As a parent, I want those involved in the care of my children to cooperate.

Collaborate if there are significant safeguarding concerns as the school has said they would not be able to discuss those concerns with you (or anyone) so I would be wary of dismissing it so lightly.

Development: the governors meeting decided to approve the school setting up its own replacement to mirrow what is being provided at present. The school is at last starting to realise the administrative hoops it will have to jump through and as of yesterday has started to liaise with the LEA over this. I have been assured (not yet reassured) that it can all be done in time. All parents will be notified by the end of the week (hopefully with a timetable that the school thinks is realistic, and against which we can tick off progress as it happens).

If I can be satisfied that the children will experience a seamless change from the old to the new in September then I'm a happy parent, although the culture of consultation at the school needs to change. As one parent at the meeting commented this week - if the school consults about uniform and lunch menu, why not this?

Haven't read the whole thread but am aware that a lot of these things have been funded by 'Extended Schools' money which has been decimated by LEA cuts. My husband lost his job directly as a result of cuts to extended schools and lots of schools have stopped providing after school clubs as a result.

Our primary school has never offered after school clubs and have used their extended schools money for other things (apparently!). Lots of parents have challenged the Head who says there is no local need for after school childcare which can be offered by childminders. Several after school clubs have been set up by parents (very dodgy I think) but the school have refused to offer school facilities or support the clubs financially in any way. They have all folded because of red tape.

There are real potential benefits from this being an in-house facility but there are also real potential issues.

Do you know whether the intention is that the facility will be an LA provision or whether it will be a school run provision? From your posts I guess it is going to be the latter. In that case I hope that the GB is going to very carefully look at the issues surrounding employment of the staff, they must be done under TUPE from my understanding fo the situation or they just open up all sorts of issues over dismissal claims. Another key question for me is the management of the facility. I would be guessing that this is going to be the head or deputy head and that automatically begs the question, at what cost?

Hopefully there will be sensible voices within the LA that will stop the GB and head from going off and doing something really silly.

admission: it will be school run. The GB has looked closely at the TUPE issue and funds might have to be set aside. Legal advice is being taken so at least they won't be taken by surprise.

I think the buck will from September stop with the Head. The school is liaising with the LEA coordinator so at least now they are aware of their responsibilties. My main concern now is getting it set up in time, but I'm told that it can be done.

Whatever I may think about the decision to stop with the present provider, my focus now needs to be on doing everything possible to ensure it's started in time. Any issues about lack of consultation/school ethos in that department will have to await the next academic year.

My experience of LEAs is that they are all desperate to get schools to take on more responsibility for themselves these days, because half of their staff have been made redundant and they are struggling with huge cutbacks. So I'm not sure how much of a sensible voice you'll get from the LEA. The current Government has a very interesting way of going about not cutting back on education funding, which actually appears to have resulted in huge cutbacks and a huge pressure on schools to become academies if possible on the basis that they actually have to, because the LEA isn't in a position to provide much in the way of support any more...

ps I thought the nursery school in Plymouth that was much in the news a year or two ago had a good safeguarding rating from OFSTED and was much loved by the parents?

Was it? You have to trust people/OFSTED sometimes though.

Really? Why?

Because otherwise you'll believe they faked the moon landings, Elvis is living on an island with Diana, and you'd scrap OFSTED and not bother inspecting schools, as you can never trust them.

(hope you're playing devil's advocate)

We had HMI before OFSTED who not only inspected schools but provided support to help schools to improve. I know which I prefer.
No Collaborate I'm serious why should a subcontractor who has no background in education be considered a reliable judge of a school after spending a few hours looking round?

I thought OFSTED was potentially in line for being scrapped or at the very least scaled back to very little? The Government wants schools to run themselves with as little money spent on providing any centralised overview of what they are up to as possible.

If Ofsted or the LA have inspected the childcare and had concerns, as a parent using it were you not informed?

That's the thing. They inspected it 18 months ago and found their safeguarding to be outstanding. Still, they will be history come July. Meanwhile I hear the school's track record includes a reception child making it out onto the street (unconfirmed but potentially reliable rumour).
Will these things will happen in the best run schools?

Lots of things can change in 18 hours never mind in 18 months

By that I mean I can go into school on a morning and by 9am a child has made a disclosure which has to be reported to the police and can lead to a CP order before I leave

But that doesn't mean you close down the school. It has not been claimed that the provider's procedures aren't up to it, or that they haven't been followed, or that an employee of theirs has done something to place a child at risk. Therefore I can only assume that the only safeguarding issues involve incidents that occur that they need to deal with and record, just as a school will have to from time to time (as in the example you've given). If a child tells a teacher they're being abused at home that's a safeguarding issue. Doesn't reflect badly on the school.
From what I understand anyway the provider is seeking legal advice. Letters being sent to parents saying the kids aren't safe enough in the care of the soon to be former providers are claimed by them to be defamatory. I hope that solicitors do get involved, as it would appear to be the only way I could measure the validity of the concerns. If a letter comes out clarifying or retracting previous claims I know where we stand. If one doesn't, again I know where we stand. Sad really.

Making claims over safeguarding issues to parents is just another badly thought through action by the school.
Any letter to parents over the removal of the present supplier simply had to say the school have made a decision to take it in-house because we believe that it will have long term benefits for the school. No other reason was necessary as that is a statement that could well be true. Quoting safeguarding as the reason is meant to make the school look good but looks like it might be another own goal as the current supplier cannot allow that to go unchallenged if they also run lots of other such facilities.