Any experience of Infant and Junior schools "merging"

[Holepunch]

Junior head leaves in Sep and consultation has started on merging the schools - we are practically the last separate Infant and Junior schools in the region.

Except, you're not allowed to say merge. Apparently what will happen is that the Junior School will close, the Infant school will expand and change its name to Primary. This is the way it's done these days, following LA and national guidance, apparently.

So, we've been told most jobs will be unaffected. Infant staff will get letters advising of change of name, but contracts will stay the same. Junior staff will get new contracts which will mirror their existing ones.

UNLESS there is duplication, which is most likely in admin or with TLRs. The governors are saying staff from each school will be treated fairly, but the HR rep was more cagey saying staff at each school will be treated equally, where the law allows . He seemed to be saying staff at the Infant school would be in a better position, should jobs (or TLRs) be at risk. The governors are at pains to say their aim is to treat everyone equally, but HR seems to suggest that legally that might not be possible.

Any experience?

This happened at dds school, but was a bit different as both schools shared the same site.
Are you sure you've understood this correctly OP? Regardless as to which site is used, both the Infant and Junior schools would close and the new primary would count as a totally new school.
Current governors may not all get a say, there should be a new governing body set up for the new primary school made up of representatives from both schools who will make the key decisions.

I've been in an Infant school, when similar happened, but it was definitely not as you describe - the two schools were treated equally in becoming one.
Once the HT was appointed, then she devised the structure she wanted in her new school (as regards to if there were DHTs, ASTs, TLRs for x/y/z and they were all advertised to everyone who had equal rights to apply for any of them ~ so, in theory someone without an allowance could apply for a senior position. If the person already doing the job had been doing a good job, then I guess they would be able to demonstrate more knowledge and experience though.

Anyone who was on an allowance but 'lost' it in the reshuffle, had their salary protected for 3 years.

The HT we had, was very keen to make us 'one school' from the off and wanted staff to move out of their comfort zones and teach in other key stages, so we all became one team. I think this is particularly important when you are physically separated in different buildings. The LA also put in some money to create one new entrance / office space and staff room out of classes that had been in the middle of the 2 buildings, again, to help with this 'oneness'.

That said, this was at a time when the LA was keen to save a lot of money longer term by having 'thourgh' schools rather than sep Inf/Jnr schools.

Nobody lost their job - there was a bit of 'natural wastage' and quite a few people left in the following year or two, but then you often get that with a new HT any way.

I seem to remember there were one or two staff hoping for some kind of redundancy package that was never needed / offered

The Unions are very good at supporting schools through this, and the school managemant is likely to already be talking to them.

This happened at DDs school when I was a governor. Doing it that way meant that the remaining head didn't have to apply for the new job, and everyone could continue with minimal disruption. That was about 5 years ago though, so rules may have changed.

Yes, that's what's happening sliced finger. It's being done this way to minimise disruption/uncertainty for staff as for all the Infant staff things will carry on as normal, no-one will have to re-apply for jobs etc.

But at the same time they're trying to say that the junior staff won't be disadvantaged....

It is definitely one school closing and the other taking on their pupils and staff, not the schools merging and not both schools closing. Everyone has been very clear on that.

I'm not worried particularly. I have a very p-t admin job, so not much to lose really anyway. I just wish they'd be clearer to stop people coming to me with their questions/concerns.

I cant advise on the technicalities of how the merger is taking place but I have had experience of such a "merger" about 12 years ago now.

It was the same pattern: head of the Juniors retired, this triggered a merger. The only person the Governing Body could appoint as a head by resolution, without advertising the post and inviting applications was the Infant Head. The GB, or, of course, the Infant Head could say no which would then trigger a full scale appointment process for a new Head of the merged schools.

At the time we thought that the GB also had the right to reject a merger and stick with seperate Infant and Junious and there were certainly some parents who favoured that, and also some staff. However on enquiry it became plain that all the evidence is that apart from saving a Head's salary an "allthrough" schools does better in terms of performance.

When the GB got further advice that the option to say "no" to a merger was no longer available due to a change in the law, so far as the GB was concerned the point moot as it was convinced a merger best anyway.

And yes, it was certainly the right decision.

My children's primary merged. It wasn't a success educationally.

From an employment point of view, are you permanent or just on a contract? With a merger people at the end of a contract are the most vulnerable. With redundancies there is a clear procedure to follow. Positions rather than people are made redundant. You will be issued a letter if you are at risk of redundancy where the criteria for redunancy is made clear. There might be points for qualifications, experience and performance. The new head cannot sack you because he/she like your counterpart in juniors more. The best person should be kept. It might be a good time to join a union.

If you are employed by the lea then the lea will try and help you find another job.

I think there is an issue over words here. Merging two schools, the law is that they both close and then reopen as a single entity. What you are describing is not a merger but the closure of the Junior School with a revision of the teaching ages in the infants to create a Primary school.

I would ask what is happening with the governing body. If it is a merger then the two GBs will be disbanded and a new temporary and then permanent GB formed after the new school comes into existence. Again your post seems to suggest that the Infant school GB is becoming the GB of the primary school.

The HR person being somewhat cagey would send very large alarm bells for me as they are the people who have to get it right. They need to be pinned down on the exact process as it sounds a bit like a good tale is being told to get buy in when the reality might be something different.

That's it admission. There will be a new governing body, but as the current GBs have quite a lot people on both and each has some vacancies, the new GB is likely to have all the same people as the combined GBs do now.

Have done this twice once as Clerk to Governors and once as a parent. It was a few years ago though. As Clerk can confirm that there are clear legal guidelines written down about the process that needs to occur when 2 schools are amalgamated (merged) including arrangements for recruitment of head and retention of staff. These should be available on request and do have to be adhered to.
The new GB does really need to include people with extra expertise e.g. professional LEA reps. A Union representative may be a good idea too to make sure that staff of both schools are treated fairly.

This is happening at our school too. It is 4 form entry all through (with some bulge classes). In this case it's the infants which will "close" and the junior school will take over.

To be honest, I think it's probably going to effect the infants more in that this marks the end of a 25 year tyrannical reign of the current head.

We haven't been told yet if it will effect practicalities, such as uniform, school hours, staffing but it will happen in June too.