1. education
2. school

Appendix 1
THE SHEAF CO-OPERATIVE LEARNING TRUST
(a mutual co-operative membership trust)
Including
Broomhill Infant School
and
Sharrow School
Report on the Consultation
Full Governing Bodies Meeting
Thursday 16 April 2015
1
INTRODUCTION
This document summarises the feedback from the The Sheaf Co-operative Learning
Trust public consultation exercise for Broomhill Infant School and Sharrow School.
This consultation report was produced on behalf of the Governing Bodies by the Cooperative College who also supported the consultation.
Broomhill Infant School are consulting only on joining the Trust as they are not
proposing to change their legal category as they are already a foundation school.
Copies of the consultation documents were published on the schools’ website and
distributed widely to consultees including parents/carers, pupils, staff, teacher
associations and support staff trade unions, local schools, the Local Authority and
stakeholders in the catchment area of the schools.
Individual meetings for the parents/carers of learners were held at each of the
consulting schools in addition to Open meetings for the general public. Meetings
were also held for staff and their union representatives at each school. These
meetings were well publicised locally.
The views of learners were sought via a joint meeting of the school council from
each school.
This document summarises the responses received for the consultation as a whole.
Included within this report is a summary of the views and comments received from
individuals. All responses will be made available to the Governing Bodies for
examination when they consider this consultation. Individual responses are also
available for examination by contacting the appropriate school.
2
CONTENTS
1. Executive Summary ……………………………………………………………………..4
2. Overview of the Consultation Feedback …………………………………………….. 5
3. Recommended Action …………………………………………………………………. 8
Appendix A – Summary of response forms……………………………………………..10
Appendix A1 – Summary from Broomhill Infant School ……………..........................12
Appendix A2 – Summary from Sharrow School …………………..…………..…….....17
Appendix B – Consultation documents ………………………………………………...24
Appendix C – Notes from meetings ………………………………………………….....25
Appendix C1 – Notes from meetings Broomhill Infant School …………………...….25
Appendix C2 – Notes from meetings Sharrow School…………………..…………... 32
Appendix C3 - Notes from the meetings with the School Councils …………………48
Appendix D – Letters of response - none received ………………………………...…50
Appendix E – Local Authority assurances letter ………………..……………………. 51
Appendix F – Staffing protocol ………………………………………….……………….53
Appendix G - Unison / SCS National Agreement ……………………………….…..…54
Appendix H - NASUWT/SCS National Agreement ……………………………….……57
3
1. Executive Summary
A great deal of consultation has taken place with regard to these proposals.
i)
A summary information leaflet together with a covering letter and a response
questionnaire were issued to all the required consultees. Booklet One, which
contains a detailed explanation of the proposals, the rationale behind them, as
well as information about the partners and the implications of becoming a
foundation school, was made available to anyone who requested a copy. It was
made clear in the summary explanation leaflet how to obtain copies of Booklet
One and also Booklet Two, which was a question and answer document.
ii)
The consultation documents were made available on the consulting schools’
website and additional copies were also available from the schools for collection
if required.
iii) The consultation was promoted widely and approximately 791 sets of
consultation documentation were distributed when consultation officially opened
on 27th February 2015..
iv) Individual meetings for the parents / carers of learners, were held at each of the
consulting schools. Similarly Open meetings for the general public were held at
each school. Representatives of the local teacher associations and trade unions
were invited to attend a separate meeting and a number of representatives also
attended staff meetings (see Appendix C).
v)
The number of questionnaires returned by the closing date of March 27th, was
95. This represents a response rate of 12.01%, which is higher than the average
for this type of consultation.
vi) There were 95 response forms returned and these broke down as follows – 58
from parents; 22 from staff; 10 from governors 3 ‘other’ and 2 unknown The
great majority of these were supportive with only 2 responses being against the
proposals and 16 respondents requiring further information and 1 response
supporting a change a category but not acquiring a Co-operative Trust (see
Appendix A).
vii) Pupils were consulted via a joint meeting of the School Councils (Appendix C3).
viii) There were no separate written responses to the consultation received by the
close of consultation.
ix) A letter to obtain the required employment assurances was sent to the LA (see
Appendix E) and a response pending. In addition a staffing protocol (see
Appendix F) developed with Unions and Trade Associations and which has been
adopted in other Co-operative Trusts has also been proposed to each Governing
Body which wishes to proceed to the statutory stage. Linked to this is a formal
national agreement between UNISON and the Schools Co-operative Society
(SCS), which is the representative body for co-operative schools. Nevertheless
there may well be a few staff who still harbour some concerns. It will be
important to reassure them that experience elsewhere in the other co-operative
trust schools, mean any remaining concerns are unfounded. The proposed LA
reassurances and associated staffing protocols with the TA/TUs plus the
UNISON/SCS National Agreement, should all serve to reassure staff. This is
particularly true for support staff with
4
regard to the UNISON/SCS National Agreement. Each governing body is
recommended to formally note these two documents. As an additional
safeguard SCS has now signed a similar agreement with the NASUWT, the first
teacher association to do so. (see Appendices G and H).
x)
The proposed partners remain committed to the proposed Trust and working
within the charitable aims of the Trust to raise standards and promote
community cohesion. The Trust and the partners, as well as the mutual cooperative membership dimension, including the proposed Stakeholder Forum
are likely to have a positive impact
2. Overview of the Consultation Feedback
In most consultation exercises responses (particularly written) tend to be made
by those who have strong views and not by those who accept the proposals
being put forward. In this case the overall response rate was 12.01% was higher
than similar consultations nationwide. The feedback to the consultation was
clearly in favour of the proposals. The response forms returned showed that the
majority of respondents supported the proposals with only 3 respondents
opposing them.
The biggest single number of responses was received from Broomhill Infant
School which had a much higher percentage return (27.22%) when compared to
national figures for primary schools. Sharrow School received a return of 7.16%
which is average in comparison to national figures.
Sharrow School also included a consultation meeting with their parent council in
order to engage as many parents as possible in the process and Broomhill used
other school events during the consultation stage to highlight the proposals to
parents/carers and the community.
It will be important to ensure the necessary arrangements are put in place by the
Local Authority and Governing Bodies to protect the rights of employees as
outlined in the assurances letter (see Appendix E) and protocol (see Appendix F)
as well as the noting of the National Agreements with SCS referred to earlier.
There were several supportive comments and suggestions made in response to
the consultation and these comments should be taken into consideration for the
purposes of this consultation and the future of the proposed Trust.
Each school will retain its own Governing Body and continue to run the school in
the same way as they currently do. Additional opportunities arise from the
charitable nature of the trust and there may be benefits in working together for
some projects to access additional resources.
The engagement by parents and staff in the consultation is encouraging for the
mutual membership basis of the Trust. There was a good turnout at staff
meetings at both schools. Issues in respect of governance will be clarified if a
formal statutory proposal is made ensuring that it is clear to people how the
governance of the schools will be strengthened by additional foundation
5
governors appointed by the Trust. Regard should also be given to the number of
foundation governors as expressed in the responses received.
Specific questions on the response forms have largely been answered during the
consultation meetings (see Appendix C) and additional information is also
available within Booklets One and Two.
Amongst the comments returned which remain unanswered, the following are the
most pertinent;
A number of other respondents felt that the proposals were over complex as was
the language; typical of these views were the following two responses;
‘I don’t understand what the proposal actually means.’
‘I feel the school would benefit from re-sending a letter that is simpler to
understand about what the Trust is and why? At the meeting when Evelyn
explained schools can no longer get help (from LA) and schools have to find own
help, It makes the idea of a Trust much simpler to understand. Use of simple
examples will help parents to be informed and to make a clearer choice. Not all
parents can/will attend a meeting – so information handed out would be very
beneficial to be as simple as possible’. (parent)
Obviously there’s a fine line between communicating what has to be legally
provided and putting it into Plain English in an accessible manner for all. That is
why a variety of forms of written materials are made available from the two very
detailed Booklets One and Two ( widely advertised and available on the school
websites as well as in hard copy on request) to the summary information leaflet
and accompanying response questionnaire, which all stake-holders receive as
well as an accompanying covering letter. The consultation meetings are also an
important source of further questioning etc and often respondents are much
clearer if they attend one – but they are not compulsory. The questions and
answers from the meetings are attached to this report so that all interested
parties can have access to the issues raised and the responses made. This may
also be something for the Governors and Trust Board to take on board should the
schools move forward with the proposals to identify ways of strengthening
communication as the developments progress.
There were a number of responses that showed concern about the schools
changing their focus from the individual school to the Trust.
‘You should concentrate on your school as that is your first priority. Helping is
good but I personally believe your aim and focus should be on your school.’
(parent)
Why do you feel the need for change? I think BIS is an amazing and unique
school and even though I have no further children going to attend the school, I
wouldn’t like to see anything changed’.
It is important that it is understood that on a day to day basis there will be limited
change in how the schools are run. The individual school’s governing body will
continue to be responsible for the school. Creating the Trust does not mean that
the schools join together and become one organisation. They continue to be
separate organisations with their own unique ethos and ways of working, own
staffing and leadership structures. One benefit of the Co-operative Trust model is
6
that it protects what is working well and does not bring in sweeping changes to
what is already in place. The schools will continue to be part of the LA maintained
schools. The model will formalise and add to existing arrangements that are
proving beneficial to the school and staff involved and this is what they want to
protect and further develop through the introduction of other partners. The Trust
will help support ways of sharing skills, bring together economies of scale to
enable the schools to access specialist support, provide a framework that gives a
long term commitment for partnership working and bring in additional skills and
expertise through partners. There were a number of helpful suggestions from the
respondees with regard to who they thought would be useful partners to the
proposed Trust which should be considered by the Governors. The school will be
in more control of its own future and with a supportive framework round it is less
likely to be forced down a route that is not right for them.
The overall response to the consultation was positive and parents, staff and
governors are supportive of the proposals. Staff concerns were generally around
conditions of service and continuing service particularly for support staff. These
were addressed in the consultation meetings and hopefully any concerns abated.
The presence of the LA’s HR representative at staff consultation meetings was
helpful in this part of the consultation process.
As can be seen from the summary above all the statutory requirements have
been met or exceeded and it was clear how further information (including Booklet
2) could be obtained. This information was available well in advance to allow
people to consider the proposal and decide whether or not to attend meetings
and ask questions. In our experience this is a fair summary and indicates that
there are few concerns about the proposal.
The individual governing bodies will continue to run the schools and will have the
addition of two trust/foundation governors. The Trust will be a mutual cooperative membership trust which will be democratically accountable to its
members consisting of pupils, parents, staff, local organisations and others
interested in supporting the schools. This membership base will strengthen the
links with the local community and lead to greater involvement with the local
community through the co-operative nature of the trust.
It is recognised that both the schools wish to strengthen and speed up progress
and mutual support. To this end part of the rationale is to formalise and extend
existing partnerships to accelerate and further develop these school
improvement strategies. The education partners will greatly assist in this
process. The initial involvement of the Co-operative College as a founder
partner and its experience in developing school co-operative membership trusts
will also be important in the medium to long term in securing sustainability for the
schools’ own school improvement strategies. It is recognised that the unique
stake-holding model assists in securing more effective levels of parental
engagement and addressing low or differential levels of aspiration across a
school community.
The proposals to move to Co-operative Foundation Trust status and acquire The
Sheaf Co-operative Learning Trust reflects the strong commitment to becoming a
self improving school by working with other Co-operative Trust schools. This
includes taking advantage of the potential benefits of being part of the Schools’
Co-operative Society (SCS), the country’s fastest growing schools’ network. SCS
is also developing a strong regional presence across Yorkshire and Humberside.
7
Another clear benefit is the importance of maintaining and building on the
schools’ existing strong links to their communities.
The three statutory requirements that each consulting Governing Body should
satisfy itself that it has met are:
 to enhance ( and definitely not adversely) affect standards
 that the consultation exercise complied with the appropriate school
organisation regulations and guidance
 the views and comments from respondents have been properly considered.
We can clearly state this to be the case.
As can be seen from the summary above, all the statutory requirements were
more than met. The schools responded positively to concerns expressed by
those being consulted and provided additional information to staff and
parents/carers upon request.
3. Recommended Action
It is clear that the view of those consulted support the proposal for changing
school category (in respect of Sharrow School) and acquiring (establishing) the
proposed Trust (both schools). Parents/carers, governors and staff are supportive
of the proposal.
It is recommended that:

No alterations are made to the proposal.

The Statutory Proposal is issued with a statutory period from noon on
Thursday 23th April 2015 to noon on Thursday 21th May 2015 - dates to be
confirmed.

There is no need to hold additional consultation.

Authority is delegated to the Head and Chair to finalise and issue the
statutory papers.

That each Governing Body formally communicates to staff the written
assurances when received from the Local Authority regarding pay and
conditions (including pension arrangements) for support staff and also
regarding the application of existing policies around potential redundancy
costs and related matters and that arrangements are in place to complete, on
behalf of each Governing Body, the agreement of a protocol on staffing
matters with the Sheffield teacher associations and trade union
representatives of school support staff. Each Governing Body is also
requested to note the UNISON/SCS National Agreement for school support
staff as well as that for teachers between NASUWT and SCS.

That each Governing Body formally confirms its reconstituted composition if it
is to go ahead and become a foundation school with the proposed trust as its
legal foundation:
8

That the name of the proposed trust as ‘The Sheaf Co-operative Learning
Trust’ be confirmed in the Statutory Proposals.

That this report including its summary of responses to the consultation are put
on the schools’ websites as part of the full Statutory Proposals.
9
Appendix A – Summary of response forms
A total of 95 questionnaires were received following approximately 791 consultation
documents being sent to all parents, staff and governors of the schools as well as to
a significant number of interested parties. These broke down as follows – 58 from
Parents/Carers; 22 from Staff; 10 from Governors; 3 from Other; 2 from Not Known.
NB Broomhill stated that 52 forms had been returned and this has been included in
the overall number of responses. However for the purposes of the breakdown they
have been classed as unknown and have not been attributed to any specific
response.
There were no written responses to the consultation received by the closure of the
consultation on 27th March 2015.
The number of responses for each question is given below. The totals may not
always be the same as it was possible for respondents to indicate multiple
answers to questions or to omit answering a question or questions.
Q1. How do you feel about the school changing category and joining a
Partnership Trust?
Parents/
Carers
Staff
45
18
I support the proposals
I am not sure and would like
more information …(particularly
on...)
11
I do not think the school should
change category and acquire a
Co-operative Trust because …
1
I support the change of
category, but not acquiring a Cooperative Trust because …
1
Governors
9
Other
2
Not
Known
0
4
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
.
Q2. How do you feel about the proposed partners in the Trust?
Parents/
Carers
43
Q2. These are the right partners
I am concerned about the school
working with … because …
10
I think the school should also
think about working with …
6
10
Staff
18
Governors
7
Other
2
Not
Known
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
1
0
Q3. How do you feel about this vision?
Q3. This is right for the school
I do not think … should be a
priority in the vision because
I would like to see …Included in
the school’s vision.
Parents/
Carers
50
Staff
19
Governors
10
Other
3
Not
Known
0
5
0
0
0
0
5
1
0
0
0
Q4. We propose that the Trust would appoint the legal minimum of 2
governors to each School’s Governing Body. This will link the Trust more
closely to each School’s Governing Body.
Q4. Yes – this sounds like a
good idea
Yes, but I am concerned
about… And I will want more
information to be sure about the
proposals.
No, I would prefer the Trust to
appoint more Governors
because…
No, I do not like this proposal
because…
Parents/
Carers
Staff
Governors
Other
Not
Known
50
17
9
3
0
4
3
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
Q5. Do you have any other comments, concerns or suggestions?
11
Appendix A1 – Summary from Broomhill Infant School
A total of 52 questionnaires were received following over 191 consultation
documents being sent to all parents/carers, staff and governors of the school as well
as to a number of interested parties. These broke down as follows – 32 from parents;
11 from staff; 5 from Governors, 2 from the Others category and 2 Unknown.
NB 52 forms had been returned and this has been included in the overall number of
responses. However for the purposes of the breakdown they have been classed as
unknown but have not been attributed to any specific response.
This is 27.2% of the total questionnaires and is significantly above the average
responses received.
Learners were consulted via the School Council.
The number of responses for each question is given below together with the
comments received. The background of the respondent, where known, is also given.
Q1. How do you feel about the school changing category and joining a Cooperative PartnershipTrust?
Parents/
Carers
Staff
Governors
Other
Not
Known
22
9
5
1
0
9
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
I support the proposals
I am not sure and would like
more information particularly on
………
I do not think the school should
change category and acquire a
Trust because……..
I support the change of category
but not acquiring a co-operative
Trust because ……
Comments received:
What will change in daily practice? What will change in the organisation of the
school?
I would like to know what the changes actually mean, with specific examples.
I don’t understand what the proposal actually means.
I would more information on payment to school after changing category and also its
quality
I would like to know how it will affect the current running of our school
I am not sure about any benefits to BIS
I would like more information on the implications for teaching and learning at BIS
(staff)
I am not sure about the rationale and proposed benefits.
12
I would like to know whether the schools would stay separate (ie Primary Sports
Premium) and whether this would have any effect on our involvement with BIS?
(Partner)
How would businesses become partners?
It will be easier to understand the benefits once we are started. (Staff)
What is the impact on current BIS students?
I think it will be great to have a change of category but not so sure about the
cooperative trust model in terms of its long term strategic direction.
Q2. How do you feel about the partners in the Trust?
Parents/
Carers
Staff
Governors
Other
Not
Known
22
9
5
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
These are the right partners
I am concerned about the school
working with … because …
8
I think the school should also
think about working with ….
Because …..
1
0
Comments received:
I am concerned because I do not know how the school chose the partners to work
with.
One respondent cannot answer this question as she does not feel there is sufficient
information provided to answer it.
I concerned about the school working with us because I don’t have enough
information about Sharrow School.
I cannot answer this as I don’t have enough information
I don’t know enough about Sharrow School
I don’t know enough about Sharrow School and would like more information. (Staff)
I am concerned about working with Sharrow because we have different needs
I am concerned that Sharrow is too far away. Why can we not work with a more local
school such as Lydgate, Nether Green or Westways?
I am concerned about the school working with religious organisations unless there is
a broad and equal spread of different beliefs, including non religious perspectives.
The leaflet doesn’t tell me enough about the proposed partners to be able to
comment. I would like to know more who in particular other than SCC is being
invited.
I am concerned about BIS working with Sharrow because I don’t feel it is the right
school to form closer ties with. I think we should also think about working with NG
Infant and Juniors because of the feeder school status.
I think BIS should consider working with Broomhall Nursery School and Broomhall
Under 3s. There is a natural link as so many children feed in from there and they
13
share a very similar ethos. They are also vulnerable to council cuts, evident in the
closing of the under 3’s provision which is now run as a social enterprise.
Since our school is outstanding it might help Sharrow to improve from Good to
something better.
Q3. How do you feel about the vision?
Parents/
Carers
This is right for the school
Staff
Governors
Other
Not
Known
28
10
5
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
I do not think …. should be a
priority in the vision because …..
I would like to see …included in
the school’s vision.
Comments received:
Why do you feel the need for a change? I think BIS is an amazing and unique school
and even though I have no further children going to attend the school, I wouldn’t like
to see anything changed.
One respondent cannot answer this question. She feels all the aims sound great but
seem fairly vague. She wants specific examples of what it means day to day in order
to give any real feedback eg how would you ‘support each school’, who would work
collaboratively and when? Which resources will be shared?
How shall we develop further skills and expertise of staff? (Staff)
The vision should give chances for the children of each school to share experiences
together eg shared visits, performances and celebrations.
The vision should include statements involving parent or community support
The vision should focus on present students in BIS.
I think the vision should include efforts to try to create a junior school and support
outstanding should be mutually beneficial to BIS.
14
Q4. We propose that the Trust would appoint the legal minimum of 2
governors to the school’s governing body
Parents/
Carers
Staff
Governors
Other
Not
Known
26
9
5
2
0
3
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Yes – this sounds like a good
idea
Yes but I am concerned about
….and I will want more
information about the proposals
No, I would prefer the Trust to
appoint more Governors
because…
No, I do not like this proposal
because…
Comments received:
One respondent chose not to answer this question.
I have concerns about BIS being able to retain a veto on matters concerning only the
school.
I don’t really know if this is a good or a bad thing.
Myself and my 3 siblings plus my two eldest children have passed through BIS.
Where I feel that this change could have a positive impact on the school, I want
assurance that my youngest child will receive the same experience.
I am concerned about who the governors will be, how they will be appointed and
their vested interest.
4 is not a good number for decision making. Either have an odd number or a
governor with a casting vote.
I am concerned about outside (ie non educational) influences holding too much
influence over schools. (Staff)
The governing bodies should work together for positive results.
Q5. Do you have any other comments, concerns or suggestions?
Comments received:
I have concerns for the reason for this proposal. I would also like to know the impact
upon the school on a day to day basis.
BIS currently has excellent staff and resources. I do not know about the equivalent
resources at the proposed partnership school. Hopefully it will not be the case that
resources at BIS will be overly stretched or diluted to the benefit of other partners, to
the detriment of our school. This needs to be closely monitored.
I feel like the leaflet doesn’t give much concrete information. I am a teacher and
understand jargon but am left thinking ‘what does this all actually mean for the pupils
in these schools?’
15
I don’t think this is a very good questionnaire as I don’t really understand what the
charitable trust is giving to the school compared to how it currently functions. I think it
assumes a level of knowledge amongst parents that isn’t there.
I am not able to see any particular benefit to BIS. Surely the key aims should be the
priority in ALL schools, and I question SCC’s reasons. (Staff)
I would hope that the trust expands a little to more than two but less than 10 schools
in due course. (Governor)
I do not understand the point of this endeavour. Why have you chosen Sharrow as
our partner and not another school?
I think the proposed change fits very well with the ethos of BIS and is a very positive
move towards enhancing the existing strengths of the school as well as ensuring a
reliable and committed learning community. (Govenor)
BIS is an amazing school. Please ensure these changes keep it that way.
I think initiating BIS and Sharrow in a co-operative trust will be fantastic for both
schools. (Staff)
As long as job conditions remain the same, I think it will be good to work with other
schools, share skills and resources etc, and to have a support network for our school
(Staff)
Will our job conditions remain the same? (Staff)
I think that given current and foreseeable political climate, your plans are very
sensible and should help keep your children’s education at the forefront of everything
you do. (Stakeholder)
Overall I think it will be really good for BIS to become a trust and join a cooperative
partnership. My concern is regarding the choice of other school. BIS is an excellent
small school, with an excellent reputation and does superb work. My understanding
is that it is a very desirable school for families to attend and for staff to work in. I do
not think the same for Sharrow therefore I worry that the same calibre of staff would
not want to work at the school. I worry too that joining with such a large inner city
school will dilute what makes BIS special/different/outstanding. To me, linking NG
and even Lydgate makes for a much more appealing proposal. Thank you.
I think this is very positive for BIS having another school to share resources and
expertise with, and being there when the principles are laid down rather than when
everything is already established. Some cooperative trusts operating are doing very
well.
16
Appendix A2 – Summary from Sharrow School
A total of 43 questionnaires were received following approximately 600 consultation
documents being sent to all parents/carers, staff and governors of the school as well
as to a number of interested parties. These broke down as follows – 26 from parents;
11 from staff, 5 from Governors and one from Other. This is a total of 7.16% which
is in line with the national average. There is however, a positive response from the
majority of those who responded.
Learners were consulted via the School Council.
The number of responses for each question is given below together with the
comments received. The background of the respondent, where known, is also given.
Q1. How do you feel about the school changing category and joining a Cooperative PartnershipTrust?
Parents/
Carers
Staff
Governors
Other
Not
Known
23
9
4
1
0
2
2
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
I support the proposals
I am not sure and would like
more information particularly on
………
I do not think the school should
change category and acquire a
Trust because……..
I support the change of category
but not acquiring a co-operative
Trust because ……
Comments received:
New category and a co-operative partnership trust (parent/carer).
How the trust will support extended school (Staff)
Everything (Parent)
But I have concerns that it is irreversible. (Parent)
Becoming a Foundation School (Parent)
It offers no guarantee against ‘acadamisation’ and no guarantee of better schooling.
Most schools are still LEA schools. (Parent)
I do not think the school should change category and acquire a co-operative trust
because there is a prevailing move towards education being driven by a diversity of
providers on the basis that this somehow provides more focused teaching and
learning, leading to better outcomes for our children. I don’t believe in handing over
education to any philanthropist sponsors or co-ordinators of schools. Although I
totally support the school in not wanting to become an academy I do view the Cooperative movement cautiously, as yet another interest group seeking influence in
our schools. I cannot agree with a school system that has an ever greater diversity
17
of types of schools especially, as evidence shows that this leads to a greater
tendency towards more social segregation.
I worry that, once becoming a Foundation Trust, there is not going back to becoming
a community school again. I agree that the LA support is diminishing but am really
concerned that we are heading towards the establishment of an educational
framework which is likely to facilitate the ability of a future government in dismantling
comprehensive education all together.
We do face challenges as the size and capability of the LA continues to reduce and I
agree that schools must form partnerships with other schools in order to share and
transfer good practices. Joint procurement and reduction in duplication is necessary
so that all resources are focuses on teaching and learning and this is something I am
proud to say Sharrow school has been doing and doing very successfully, as our
latest Ofsted inspection showed.
I don’t believe that forming a Co-operative Trust necessarily leads to improving what
we are already building on, or protecting collaboration between schools in case a
Headteacher or Governing bodies change. There is certainly no evidence to show
that this will improve the performance of the school. The impact of the effectiveness
of any structure, whether a Co-operative Trust, an Academy, or a Grant Maintained
school, is not the structure itself but the enthusiasm, commitment and skills of those
leading and working in it. And this can only be based on having a strong leadership
and governance. No matter what structure you have, this can fade just as easily
under a Co-operative Trust structure as in any of the other structures – hence why
Co-operative Trusts vary in their ability to show improvements and community
cohesion as much as any of the Academies and Grant Maintained schools do.
Having researched Co-operative Trusts up and down the country I don’t see any real
evidence to show that this structure is any better or any worse in driving standards
up to improve our children’s outcomes. Or creates greater
representation/accountability within the school community, which should be the main
reasons for any changes at this level.
Becoming a Co-operative trust does not guarantee further protection against
Academies or potential Government policy changes. In Leeds, the Co-operative
Trusts moved to Academy Co-operative Trust status, by all accounts due to fears of
being taken over by other chain academies. (Governor)
Q2. How do you feel about the partners in the Trust?
Parents/
Carers
Staff
Governors
Other
Not
Known
21
9
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
5
1
3
1
0
These are the right partners
I am concerned about the school
working with … because …
I think the school should also
think about working with ….
Because …..
Comments received:
Secondary school ... to learn for the Y5 or the Y6 (parent/carer).
Partners in the trust ... I would prefer to share the regulation and the change with the
partner (parent/carer).
18
The universities because this will help raise aspirations and improve teaching.
(governor)
More local schools, Lowfield and Nether Edge because close links with similar
community, similar cohort. (governor)
Other local schools because this will widen the impact of the Trust’s work. (other)
Lowfield and Nether Edge School because have heard lots of positive things about
these schools. (staff)
See attached pdf file (governor)
Businesses - because of concerns over potential financial interest or gain. (Parent)
Think school should also think about working with – Other co-operative or learning
centres (Parent)
It could bring in a wider educational experience through arts, music and sport etc,
bringing more variety of curricular and extra-curricular activities.
Concerned about school working with Broomhill because I’ve never been aware of
partnership work with this school. It’s an Infant School – what benefit for Juniors?
School should also think about working with – South Yorkshire Community Police.
(Parent)
School should also think about working with local schools under similar
arrangements because there are good current co-operative arrangements. (Parent)
I believe the schools/partners we are working with at present in collaboration and
partnership are the correct ones. I support further collaboration with the two
universities. Who will be likely to be future external partners – private businesses,
future employers and religious organisations/groups? I am concerned about the
influence of other external forces, especially if partnerships are with ‘for profit’
organisations. I do not believe that private businesses have the interests of our
children’s education at heart and would not want to see them sat on any Trust or
school boards. (Governor)
Q3. How do you feel about the vision?
Parents/
Carers
This is right for the school
Staff
Governors
Other
Not
Known
22
9
5
1
0
3
0
0
0
0
3
1
0
0
0
I do not think …. should be a
priority in the vision because …..
I would like to see …included in
the school’s vision.
Comments received:
Protecting pay pension and employment/working conditions for all staff. (staff)
I really feel the school would benefit from re-sending a letter that is simpler to
understand about what the Trust is and why. At the meeting when Evelyn explained
schools can no longer get help (from LA) and schools have to find own help, it
makes the idea of Trust much simpler to understand. Use of simple examples will
19
help parents to be informed and to make a clearer choice. Not all parents can/will
attend a meeting – so information handed out would be very beneficial to be as
simple as possible. (parent)
b) You should concentrate on your school as that is your first priority. Helping is
good but I personally believe your aim and focus should be on your school. (Parent)
Supporting a broader sphere of learning in addition to core curriculum work, (which I
believe Sharrow School currently does well)
a) b) c) d) e) f) g) – My priority is the school my kids attend and all these priorities are
about a partnership model. (Parent)
Support, recognize, strengthen and appreciate each schools identity within the
Trusts mutual collaborative working practice. (parent)
b) Ofsted’s judgements are ‘political’. The school can be outstanding through self
assessment regardless of ofsted’s views. (Parent)
I believe the visions we have are correct and is something that we adhere to already.
I don’t believe this fundamental restructuring is necessary to implement what is
already being done and adhered to in our school ethos. (Governor)
Q4. We propose that the Trust would appoint the legal minimum of 2
governors to the school’s governing body
Parents/
Carers
Staff
Governors
Other
Not
Known
24
8
4
1
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
Yes – this sounds like a good
idea
Yes but I am concerned about
….and I will want more
information about the proposals
No, I would prefer the Trust to
appoint more Governors
because…
No, I do not like this proposal
because…
Comments received:
Ensure all staff are represented on the governing body. (staff)
See attached pdf file (governor)
Concerned about: Future changes to governors who have different ideas than
current ones (Staff)
Concerned that: impartiality is maintained on behalf of the
Stakeholders/forum/Council when appointing trustees for the Trust. (Parent)
The trust will be unlikely to be representative and is accountable only to itself
(Parent)
20
The current school Governance is strong! (Parent)
I am still not clear as to why we would need a Trust Governor on the school
Governing Body? How will the governance of the schools be strengthened by
having additional Foundation Governors on the school’s governing body, appointed
by the Trust? What will the role of the Trust governors be on the governing body?
How will they be accountable and who are they accountable to, especially as they
will have a vote on the Governing Body? The Head and Chair fo the Governing
Body, it says, are likely to be elected from each Governing Body to attend the Trust
Board meetings, and so would bring any discussions/decisions to the school
Governor meetings so I am not clear why we therefore have to have Trust Governors
on as well? (Governor)
Q5. Do you have any other comments, concerns or suggestions?
Comments received:
Secondary school should join (parent/carer).
Yes, I hope the partnership with the trust will not disturb the programme Sharrow has
for their students (parent/carer).
My concern is that so far only one school interested in being part of the trust I would
like to see more involvement with local schools. (governor).
Yes please can you give our children homework on Friday. Maybe this make
parents and children take care more (parent/carer).
I trust the governors and Evelyn to always act in the best interests of the school and
its pupils (staff).
How will parents of Broomhill and Sharrow make an informed choice about whether
these are “the right” schools to work with. Many parents will not know of the other
school. For Broomhill parents, they may only see old OFSTED reports of Sharrow,
which will not highlight Sharrow’s strengths and unique qualities – these may be
important to include. Photos of the Cinderella carriage the year ones made, the alien
spaceship made with artist – things that highlight creativity and working together can
draw interest to the school. Include these on the Sharrow website. Broomhill School
has lots of photos that show community spirit and Broomhill’s strengths. Sharrow
School could benefit from more on website to help Broomhill parents make an
informed choice about Sharrow School. (parent)
See attached pdf file (governor).
Concerned that once the school have left Local Authority control there is ‘no going
back’ which if things change politically might not be the best thing long term? (Staff)
Support staff contracts being protected after the 2 years? (Staff)
Will the trust always support ‘extended school’ – children’s centre/holiday care and
after school club? (Staff)
Through meetings at school, I have felt very well informed during the whole process
and this has taken away the potential change and made it an open inclusive process
of dialogue/discussion.(Staff)
All over I am pretty happy with the decision that the school has made however I
would certainly like more information on the overall plan. (Parent)
Yes I hope the partnership will not disturb the school programme they have for their
school children at Sharrow School (Parent)
21
I am concerned that under future Headteachers and Governors that it could be used
as a step towards becoming an academy, which I would not agree with. Politically, I
feel it is privatisation of the school system, eventually! I think the co-operative ideal
is fantastic, so I’m very much in support of this. (Parent)
I have serious concerns about the school changing its status and forming a trust.
The info given is not sufficient for me to understand the motivation to make this
change. Any partnership work Sharrow may have done with Broomhill in the past
has not been obvious to me and this concerns me. (Parent)
All changes increases uncertainty and the long term future is not more settled than
staying put. There are likely to be two elections in the near future that may
dramatically alter the landscape. The decision may be premature. I suggest a
review in 12-18 months. (Parent)
How is the Trust funded – does it come under a charitable status? Who will decide
how the Trust will be funded, if it is? Who organises the administration of the Trust?
What would happened if the Trust/Co-operative business collapsed (a real possibility
given the economic climate)? What might happen to the Trust and our status? I
know Sharrow School approached a number of other schools we collaborate with at
present, regarding coming in to the Co-operative Trust but only Broomhill agreed.
Can you tell us the reasons that the other schools decided not to come in with us?
Will being in the Co-operative Trust stop us being able to work with and collaborate
with other schools not in it? If not, how will we make sure those we do work
successfully with (but who are not part of the Co-operative), how we maintain this
relationship with them regardless of future changes to the heads/governors? What
does the make up of a typical Co-operative Board look like (who is likely to be on it
and how many?)? What will the Trust Board make decisions on and how will the
Governing Bodies of the different schools resolve any conflicts of interests around
decisions made that they don’t agree with? What tasks will be taken up by the
schools/Trust now that would normally be carried out by the LA, and what
provision/time will be taken up to do this, if any? Who would administer these areas
now? From talking to Governors from Co-operative Trusts there will be a significant
increase in the workload to governors – how will they have the capacity to cope with
this increase and what happens (as if often the case) when Governors leave and
new Governors coming in are unable to take up that amount of work or are not as
committed to the Trust? Please could we have more explanation as to how the
Stakeholder Forum works? I am presuming that the parent Governors will continue
to be elected by the parents on to the schools’ Governing Body? So who does the
Stakeholder Forum represent – what is it for and who does it do? I have read that
‘The members elect representatives to a “stakeholder forum” which then expresses
the views of the wider group to the school leadership, while also electing trustees,
who in turn elect some of the members of the school’s governing body’. Could you
clarify the role of the Parent Governors to the role of the representative from the
Stakeholder Forum - given that the Parent Council can send representatives onto
the Forum? Who represents the parents or do they both? How do we ensure that
community cohension is truly represented in the Stakeholder Forum and who
oversees it? How ill those with English as their second language be able to be
supported to take part in the forum? How will the Stakeholder Forum engage
parents and the community and can anyone who attends who decides they have an
interest in the school? What is meant by ‘interest’? What is the distance from the
school that people/businesses/faith groups have to be able to be in to join the forum?
How do we make sure that one community/school group of parents from the different
schools doesn’t dominate this forum more than those from other schools who might
find more barriers to becoming part of the forum? We have a Parent Council at
Sharrow School that is good and I feel represents the whole community of the school
at different levels. But the work involved to build the confidence of parents to feel
part of and to attend our sessions is enormous. The attendance and involvement
22
can vary throughout the year for all sorts of reasons. My concern with the
Stakeholder Forum is that without a lot of work and support, a large number of our
parents may not get involved and it could end up with a small but dominant force
leading it, but not necessarily representing the views of the school community. This
could also be the case from the community side or those small businesses or faith
groups that might want to join. I can’t find any good examples of how this is working
well in other Co-operative Trusts? It seems to me that this is not something that just
naturally forms through the creation and ethos of the Co-operative Trust and I’m
really not sure how democratic/representative it will end up being? Is it true that the
Parent Council/parents can become part of the Stakeholder Forum and therefore be
elected on to the Trust Board? How does this work with Parent Governors
representing parents at the school governor level but parents representing the parent
community at the Trust level. Could they end up contradicting the views of parents?
Would all parents have to be members of the Stakeholder Forum to elect someone
to represent them on the Trust, as they do the Parent Governors, or is it just those
who can attend the Stakeholder meetings who would get to vote? As anyone can
become part of the Stakeholder Forum, I am presuming this includes interested
businesses, faith groups, community groups, individual etc outside of the school
community (as well as those in the school community)? How representative and
accountable are they to the school community? There are massive risks in terms of
any move (whether partial or completely) away from the safety net of the LA,
however minimal or bad they are seen to be. Can you assure us that areas like the
employer pensions contributions that go up, maternity and sickness entitlements, the
conditions of service for the staff, the responsibility of tribunals and who is culpable
have been looked into seriously and that guarantees being made now to protect staff
are future proofed? (Governor)
23
Appendix B – Consultation documents
See Leaflet, Booklets One and Two and Questionnaire
(available through the schools’ website)
24
Appendix C – Notes from meetings
Appendix C1: Notes from the consultation meeting with parents/carers at
Broomhill Infants School, Sheffield on Thursday 12 March 2015 at 9.00 am
Present
Gillian Briggs, Head teacher
Derek Grover, Chair of Governors
Julie Bowdidge, Co-operative College Associate
Parents/Carers (8)
The Head teacher welcomed everyone to the meeting and invited the Chair of
Governors to talk to the group. DG outlined the main reasons for establishing the
Trust, key considerations and future plans. This included:
-
Formal, legal commitment
Community based
Like-minded school sharing the same values
As a small school could be vulnerable to reorganisation and want to make
decisions about the future before any are imposed
Less support from the LA for school improvement need to share skills and
expertise and learn from one another
Model presents least change as already a foundation school
Retains the uniqueness of Broomhill – little change will be seen by parents
Will be able to grow in the future and economies of scale will enable the
school to do things that as a small school they might not be able ie employ
staff to support specialist work
JB then talked about the Co-operative aspect of establishing a Trust:
-
How the Co-operative College fits into the Co-operative Movement
The international and national picture
Alternative model to academisation
Values and principles
The process
Trust model
Other networks
Questions and Answers
Why link with another school?
The model provides a formal way of working together to enable long term
commitment. Sharrow holds a similar ethos to Broomhill and we can learn from one
another – similar issues and similar community. It will help us develop areas we
might not be able to on our own. Given the reduction in the LA support for school
improvement we need to find our support from other areas. Broomhill is the second
smallest school in Sheffield so we could be vulnerable to reorganisation in the future
this will help us protect what we hold dear.
Will this impact on the special nature of this school – we like it being small and
don’t want to become part of a larger school?
No is the simple answer. Both schools will stay the same they do not join together
to become one school. The Governing Body will continue to operate as it does now
25
talking the decisions on the future of the school just as the GB at Sharrow will for
their school. We will still employ the staff in the same way. It is not a takeover by
Sharrow but just formalising the joint working we do now to enable us to make longer
term decisions. We want to retain the school as it is now and we feel this will help us
do this.
Will it affect admissions to feeder schools? Is there an expectation that we
have to go to Sharrow?
No not at all - it does not affect this at all. It is still down to parental choice which
school you send your child to. Some children do move onto Sharrow but that is
because that is the school that was chosen.
How would this affect any plans for the future if the school were to expand and
become a junior school too?
That is a separate issue to this one. The council will be undertaking a consultation
on their plans for reorganisation in the area but it is not part of this consultation.
(There was some discussion around the difficulties of expansion. transition issues
and potential growth of the school)
Are there any financial aspects for the Co-operative from the Trust?
There is a fee to pay for support during the consultation periods and decision making
and for the legal aspects. This is a one off payment. There are no fees to pay on an
annual basis. The Co-operative do this in order to extend the Co-operative
Movement and provide an alternative model for schools.
What if other schools join the Trust who need a lot of support will this detract
from work at our school?
There is an expectation that outstanding schools do support and help schools who
may require improvement. But just because a school needs some support in some
areas it doesn’t mean that all areas require improvement. There are always
opportunities to learn from one another.
How will you decide who are suitable partners?
We do not want the Trust to become too big – we are thinking about 6 schools would
be the biggest we would want to go. This would predominately be based on ethos
and be values led and geography would probably also be a consideration. The Trust
Board would take that decision.
Will there be any changes to staffing?
No – the governing body will continue to employ staff just as they do now, and there
will be no change to terms and conditions of employment. All personnel will stay the
same as they are now.
The Head thanked everyone for coming and encouraged everyone to return their
questionnaires to let the school know their thoughts on the proposal.
The meeting closed at 9.45 am.
26
Notes from the consultation meeting with Unions at Broomhill Infants School,
Sheffield on Thursday 12 March 2015 at 2.30 pm
Present
Gillian Briggs, Head teacher
Derek Grover, Chair of Governors
Julie Bowdidge, Co-operative College Associate
Debbie Clark, HR
Lyn Hancock, GMB
Phil Robinson, GMB
Toby Mallinson, NUT
Lisa Smith, Unison
Introductions were made and everyone was welcomed to the meeting
DG outlined the main reasons for establishing the Trust, key considerations and
future plans. This included:
-
Formal, legal commitment
Community based
Like-minded schools sharing the same values
As a small school could be vulnerable to reorganisation and want to make
decisions about the future before any are imposed
Less support from the LA for school improvement need to share skills and
expertise and learn from one another
Model presents least change as already a foundation school
Retains the uniqueness of Broomhill – little change will be seen
Will be able to grow in the future and economies of scale will enable the
school to do things that as a small school they might not be able ie employ
staff to support specialist work
As the school was already a Foundation School there is no change in respect
of staffing issues.
JAB spoke about how the Co-operative College expected governors to continue to
support National Terms and Conditions where applicable and any local agreements
in operation, for support staff T & Cs need to be the same or better and for GBs to
sign up to the ‘Tong’ agreement in terms of trade union relations. There were
national agreements in place between the co-operative and NAS/UWT, Unison and
with the TUC.
Questions and Answers
Given you are an outstanding school what are the pressures you feel? What
can be done as part of a Trust that you can’t do anyway?
We are a small school and therefore feel vulnerable to reorganisation. Also with the
lack of support from the LA we still need to look for support to continue to improve.
With regards to establishing a Trust it gives us long term commitment to make
decisions such as employing specialist support and for partnership working. It means
we are in at the beginning and able to shape our future whilst still keeping the
individual character of our schools. We don’t want to be forced into any actions that
we don’t want to take ie becoming part of an academy chain
27
Will this Trust be part of other Trusts in Sheffield?
No they are set up as individual trusts.
The Head thanked everyone for coming and invited representatives to join the staff
at their meeting and arrangements would then be put in place for them to meet with
their members after the meeting.
The meeting closed at 3.10 pm
28
Notes from the consultation meeting with staff at Broomhill Infants School,
Sheffield on Thursday 12 March 2015 at 3.15 pm
Present
Gillian Briggs, Head teacher
Derek Grover, Chair of Governors
Julie Bowdidge, Co-operative College Associate
Lyn Hancock & Phil Robinson, GMB
Lisa Smith, Unison
Debbie Clark, HR
Members of staff (13)
The Head teacher welcomed everyone to the meeting and invited the Chair of
Governors to talk to the group.
DG outlined the main reasons for establishing the Trust, key considerations and
future plans. This included:
-
Formal, legal commitment
Community based
Like-minded school sharing the same values
As a small school could be vulnerable to reorganisation and want to make
decisions about the future before any are imposed
Less support from the LA for school improvement need to share skills and
expertise and learn from one another
Model presents least change as already a foundation school
Retains the uniqueness of Broomhill – little change will be seen by parents or
staff
Will be able to grow in the future and economies of scale will enable the
school to do things that as a small school they might not be able ie employ
staff to support specialist work
JB then talked about the Co-operative aspect of establishing a Trust:
-
How the Co-operative College fits into the Co-operative Movement
The international and national picture
Alternative model to academisation
Values and principles
Other networks
Questions and Answers
Who will be on the Trust Board?
Each school has two representatives usually the chair and headteacher. Other
partners have one place and the Stakeholder Forum is also represented – the
number of places is determined in the Articles of Association. The schools involved
are in the majority as Board members (Trustees).
29
Will the Board be able to sell off school assets to make money for the cooperative?
No the opposite in fact. The Board holds the land and buildings ‘In Trust’ on behalf
of the schools involved. No-one can sell off the assets including the Local Authority.
There is no financial gain for the Co-operative. The only costs involved are at the
beginning of the process in setting up the Trust, legal costs and for things like
printing and publication of the statutory notices. There is no on-going fee to pay.
The Co-operative see this as extending the co-operative movement.
How many Trust are there in Sheffield?
There is currently the Birley Trust involving 4 schools, Sharrow and Broomhill
consulting, three schools due to start consulting in June and a further 9 schools
considering whether or not to go ahead. Nationally there are around 600 cooperative schools and after community schools and church schools it is the largest
group of schools.
Why Sharrow?
The Chair of Governors and Headteacher approached us in the beginning. The two
headteachers are already working together through the Triad. Sharrow although a
larger school has a similar intake and community to us, similar values and approach
and are a good geographical fit. They are a good school and we can both learn from
one another – for example their added value is outstanding. We are hoping that
eventually more schools will join us. We think 6-8 would be a good number so we
don’t become too large and unwieldy. We are already having conversations with
other schools but wanted to get started rather than wait as they may need more time
to make their decision. We are also talking to Sheffield Hallam university.
Who will be responsible for building maintenance and Health and Safety?
The Governing Body will still have that responsibility though the LA will still have
responsibility for asset management.
Will there be any changes to Terms and Conditions of Employment?
No – the governing body will continue to employ staff just as they do now, and there
will be no change to terms and conditions of employment. All personnel will stay the
same as they are now.
The Head thanked everyone for coming and encouraged them to return their
questionnaires to let the school know their thoughts on the proposal. Additionally,
staff were informed that there was a meeting for the NUT members being held at
Sharrow on 25 March. Anyone who wanted to meet with their union was also invited
to attend. Staff asked if they could visit Sharrow. The Headteacher and Chair
thought this would be a good idea to arrange reciprocal visits for all staff.
The meeting closed at 4.15 pm.
30
Notes from the Open meeting at Broomhill Infants School, Sheffield on
Thursday 12 March 2015 at 6 pm
Present
Gillian Briggs, Head teacher
Derek Grover, Chair of Governors
Julie Bowdidge, Co-operative College Associate
As no one attended the meeting it was agreed to close at 6.10 pm
31
Appendix C2: Notes from the Consultation Meetings at Sharrow
School
Parents and Carers Meeting, Wednesday 11 March 2015, 9:00am to 9:40am
Attendees :
Parents
Governors
Headteacher
Staff
Co-op College
Clerk
6
Sally Green; Colin Havard, Lucinda Wakefield;
Evelyn Abram
Sue Atkinson; 2 Interpreters
Julie Bowdidge
Paul Haigh
Everyone was welcomed to the meeting and the Chair of Governors outlined the
proposal and the rationale for establishing a Trust. Julie Bowdidge spoke about the
Co-operative aspects for schools considering adopting the Co-operative Trust model.
Questions raised during the meeting
Q
Who will fund or own the Trust as I am worried about an Academy take over?
A
Sharrow will retain its independent status but receive funding from the Local
Authority. Schools in the Co-operative Trust will be able to choose to put
money into a joint fund to benefit all.
Q
Will there be less money under the proposed arrangement or will money be
taken out of the school budget?
A
Under the Academy status money is provided by the Department for
Education and funding is often topsliced to fund the structure and other
initiatives. This is different to the Co-operative Trust as schools will be able to
decide whether to put money into a pot to fund joint initiatives, for example
music provision.
Q
I have a worry about Academies taking over and then privatising the
education in school?
A
There will be some changes as Sharrow will need to become a Trust School
first then move into a Co-operative Trust with other schools, this will change
the school’s relationship with the Local Authority. The change in status has
been a worry for the Governing Body and therefore the options have been
discussed in detail. The Governing Body was disinclined to consider
Academy status but took the view that Trust status would enable a values and
principles approach to improve the school and offer better opportunities for
children’s learning.
Q
If the Co-operative Trust does become 6 schools how tied in would they be,
could a school opt out in the future?
32
A
Once the Trust is established this becomes a legal process and there will be
processes in place for any changes. However, it is expected that schools will
commit to support a long term partnership.
Q
Could the Trust grow to include more schools?
A
There are no limits to the number of schools in a Trust but research has
shown that between 6 and 8 schools is the optimum number as beyond this
schools tend to break up into groupings. There are no proposals at this time
to include a Secondary School in the Trust, as due to size this tends to affect
the dynamics of the grouping.
33
Notes from the Open Public Meeting at Sharrow School, Wednesday 11 March
2015, 6:00 to 6:15 pm
Attendees :
Parents
Governors
Headteacher
Staff
Co-op College
Clerk
1
Sally Green; Colin Havard, Lucinda Wakefield;
Evelyn Abram
1 Interpreter
Julie Bowdidge
Paul Haigh
There was 1 Parent in attendance at 6 pm. This Parent was asked if she could
attend the Consultation Meeting at 9am on Friday 13 March 2015. She agreed to this
request.
The meeting was closed at 6:15pm.
34
Parents and Carers Meeting (2), Sharrow School, Friday 13 March 2015, 9:00
am - 10:00 am
Attendees :
Parents
Governors
Staff
Staff
Co-op College
Clerk
52
Colin Havard, Lucinda Wakefield;
Evelyn Abram
1 Interpreter
Kevin Beaton
Paul Haigh
Following input from CH and KB on the rationale for the proposal and Co-operative
College contribution questions were then invited from the attendees.
Questions raised during the meeting
Q
If the move to being Foundation and then Trust status is not successful what
does that say about the school?
A
There is a clear difference between the process and the school. The school
could take the decision to leave the Trust and become an individual
Foundation School or seek to join a different Trust. This would not have any
negative impact on performance or teaching and learning.
Q
Will there be any funding issues if the school left the Trust, would it still be a
viable entity?
A
The funding model would remain the same.
Q
If the school decided to move to Foundation status there will be no going
back, the school cannot go back to being a Local Authority Maintained school.
I have concerns with the terms ‘Co-operative Trust’ and ‘Charitable status’
and about the management of finance. The ongoing cuts in Local Authority
funding means a reduction in school funding but the proposal does not cover
the proposed new financial structure or financial management arrangements.
The Trust Board is a narrow form of governance and the finance is generally a
driver for decision making. There is nothing in the provided information to
answer these concerns.
A
Previously the School Budget was top sliced by the Local Authority to provide
a range of support services for schools across the city. Over the years more
of this money has moved to the School Budget with decisions made at school
level whether to buyback any central services. Under this process the school
still receives funding from the Local Authority and this will still be the case
under the Trust process. However, schools in the Trust will be able to decide
as a group to fund joint training or buy additional specialist support. This
decision will be made by the individual Governing Bodies.
Q
The choice seems to be between either the Co-operative Trust or Academy
status and no other, what about considering remaining as a Maintained
School. The proposed course of action represents a major change for staff
35
employed in the school and the new structure would be limited to what time
people are able to contribute.
A
Staff would be employed by Sharrow School and not the Trust. This is the
same principle as what happens now, the school currently recruits and
appoints staff with the involvement of the Local Authority being the issuing of
contracts.
Q
There will be a difference as staff will be employed by the Governing Body
and not the Local Authority, this could have an impact on their terms and
conditions. Staff in Schools and Services that have moved away from Local
Authority control have faced changes, management is different and there is
always a push for cost reductions.
A
The School currently makes decisions on recruitment and selection and will in
the future. There is no intention to move away from the national conditions of
service.
Q
The changes proposed seem to be a good idea but how much will Parents
views affect the final decision?
A
The schedule of consultation meetings is designed to allow Parents, Carers
and anyone from the community to have a say. The Headteacher is also
available in school during this process to answer any particular concerns.
The Governing Body will listen to what everyone says and if there is
significant concern will not go ahead with the change.
Q
To what extent will Parents and Carers be involved in the new status, will
there be more reliance on them to support the school. Will this be a
democratic process carried by parental concern?
A
The school will listen to all comments, both positive and negative, and if there
is a good reason for not going forward there will be no change. As a
Foundation School there will still be the same level of parent involvement on
the Governing Body and through the Parent Council although there will also
be the opportunity for parents to be involved in the Trust Forum. This is not
about seeking more unpaid volunteers to help run the school.
Q
How will the move to the Co-operative Trust effectively change what the
school is already doing as it is already improving on its own?
A
The Trust will focus on supporting each individual school and will identify
opportunities for mutual help and support. The Trust will be able to bring in
opportunities for specialist support that might not be available to a single
school. Each school will continue to make their own decisions but there will
be partner schools available to call upon.
Q
What is the scale of involvement by the Co-operative College, is it to help
guide and support? Will the College have any control of land and property
once it has transferred to the Trust? What if the school decided at some point
to divorce from the Trust, would it be able to take back its land and property?
A
The Co-operative College is a partner in the Trust and will provide help and
support as required. Once the decision is made to change to Foundation
status the school cannot go back to being a Maintained School, however it
can opt to leave the Trust and would take with it any land and property.
36
Q
Would the current terms and conditions of teaching and non teaching staff be
retained?
A
Yes the national conditions for staff will be retained.
Q
As part of this process are we looking at the commercialisation of Sharrow
School? If this is the starting point for looking at lifelong learning opportunities
for our children this can only be a good thing.
A
This is not about money but about raising aspirations, working with other
schools, the Universities, the Local Authority and hopefully some business
partners.
Q
What will happen if Ofsted do not agree with the changes or there is a dip in
performance?
A
Ofsted have rated Sharrow School as ‘Good’ but our ambition moving forward
is to be rated ‘Outstanding’, the Trust will help us achieve our aims. There is
a Sheffield school within a Trust that has recently been rated as failing but the
other schools have proved to Ofsted that there is the level of support within
the Trust to help this school improve.
Q
What would happen if Sharrow School identified some specialist support
requirement but the Co-operative Trust did not consider it a priority for
funding?
A
This happens now as the Local Authority cannot always provide what the
school requires. Sharrow School will still be an independent body but can call
upon the Trust for support, this will come down to the school successfully
petitioning its case.
As the school starting up the Trust we can control how it will work, this would
not be the case if we were joining an established Trust.
Q
Geographically how big will the Trust be?
A
We are looking at a Trust of 6-8 within a close locality as distance is a key
factor when sharing staff and resources.
37
Trade Union Meeting, Sharrow School, Monday 16 March 2015, 2:00 - 2:50 pm
Attendees :
ATL Union
Governors
Clerk
David Slegg
Colin Havard
Paul Haigh
CH gave an overview of the rationale for the proposal and invited questions.
Questions raised during the meeting
Q
Where will Sharrow grow the numbers in the Trust as the neighbouring
schools are also proposing change?
A
We will be drawing from the locality but are not averse to widening the area.
Geography will be an issue with regards distance.
Q
How do you envisage embedding the proposed ways of working in the
articles?
A
This is one of the reasons for choosing the Co-op approach. The Co-op
College has draft articles of association in place that fits our model.
Q
Is it the intention to recruit to schools in the Trust but allow movement
between worksites?
A
This will be the case for all staff, teaching and non-teaching. The school will
also continue to buy into Local Authority support services where available.
Q
Has there been any opposition to the proposal?
A
There have been concerns that this is a step towards being an Academy and
that by moving to Foundation status we are not being supportive of the Local
Authority. However, feedback from parents had been generally positive. The
Headteacher has also kept staff fully appraised of the Governors position as
they considered the options over the previous 2 years.
Q
How is the wider Co-op movement involved in these changes?
A
The Co-op College is supporting the process at arm’s length and is
signposting advice and information.
Q
Will there be a Trust Board above the school?
A
The school will be a legal entity in its own right with the same level of
governance. There will be a link from the school with partners on the Trust
Board, with school representation being in the majority.
Comments:

From what I have heard it fits the pattern that is happening in other schools. It
is good to hear that it is proposed to adopt the national terms and conditions
38
as part of the change

The Local Authority no longer has the structure or funding levels to provide
the support you need going forward, I can understand why you are looking
outside
Small schools cannot afford the specialist skills needed on their own but can
afford these by sharing costs and services. Small schools also have difficulty
around the recruitment and retention of outstanding teachers so schools are
having to grow their own from within (Response)

There is economy of scale in sharing teacher training and development
opportunities across a number of school sites. This also allows for managing
staff reductions in times of financial constraints.
It is the Governors’ decision to start small and grow, the opportunities for
improvement is in then in our own hands (Response)
39
Trade Union Meeting, Sharrow School, Monday 16 March 2015, 3:00 - 3:20 pm
Attendees :
GMB
HR
Governors
Headteacher
Co-op College
Clerk
Lyn Hancock
Elise Senior
Colin Havard
Evelyn Abram
Julie Bowdidge
Paul Haigh
There was input from CH on the school’s reasons for the proposal to acquire a Cooperative Trust
Questions raised during the meeting
Q
What will be the expected attendance be at the staff meetings?
A
There are two staff meetings scheduled to cover staff working arrangements
across the day. All staff have been notified of the meetings and invited to
attend.
There were no further questions as the Trade Union representative had attended the
Broomhill Infant School Staff Meeting, where all specific questions had been
answered.
40
Staff Meeting (1), Sharrow School, Monday 16 March 2015, 3:30 - 4:05pm
Attendees :
Staff
ATL Union
GMB Union
HR
Governors
Headteacher
Co-op College
Clerk
32
David Slegg
Lyn Hancock
Elise Senior
Colin Havard
Evelyn Abram
Julie Bowdidge
Paul Haigh
CH presented the rationale behind the proposal and JB highlighted the Co-operative
College aspects. Staff were also informed of the date when the NUT and Unison
representatives would be available in school as they were unable to attend today’s
meeting.
Questions raised during the meeting
Q
If the building is to be owned by the Trust will this be at a cost to the school
and does this make any difference to the funding or maintenance
arrangements?
A
The land and buildings will be held in trust by the Trust but there will be no
change in the day to day management arrangements. The only additional
costs are in relation to the consultation process – leaflets, statutory notices
and support from the Co-op College.
Q
Will the transfer be classed as a TUPE?
A
Staff would transfer under TUPE-like arrangements, and current terms and
conditions will transfer over with staff. The Co-op College has an expectation
that existing terms and conditions remain and any local agreements are
honoured.
Q
So if the national conditions worsen staff would be protected?
A
Yes this is the case and given the political perspectives national conditions
are likely to continue to be eroded. It is not in the interest of the school to
make any changes as our direction of travel is towards ‘Outstanding’ and this
can only happen with the support off staff.
Q
If the Trust doesn’t help the school as expected can we move out?
A
The School cannot move back to being a Maintained school but there is a
legal process to leave the Trust and join a different one.
Q
Will the changes proposed affect staff pensions?
A
There will be no changes to the current arrangement for staff pensions. HR
will support the transfer process to ensure that service records are correct at
the point of Transfer.
41
Q
Will our salaries continue to be paid by the Local Authority?
A
Staff will be employed by the Governing Body not the Local Authority and paid
for from the school budget. The school will continue to buyback at this time
the Payroll Service from the Local Authority, at some point the wording on the
payslip will reflect this.
42
Staff Meeting (2), Sharrow School, Monday 16 March 2015, 5:00 - 5:50pm
Attendees :
Staff
HR
Governors
Headteacher
Co-op College
Clerk
10
Elise Senior
Colin Havard
Evelyn Abram
Julie Bowdidge
Paul Haigh
CH spoke to the group about the rationale for the proposal. JB input on the Cooperative aspects of the proposal. Staff were also informed about the dates when
the Unison and NUT representatives would be available in school as they were
unable to attend today’s meeting.
Questions raised during the meeting
Q
Is there a time limit for TUPE?
A
There is no timescale for the TUPE terms and conditions to expire. There is a
requirement in law for any future changes to be an improvement to the TUPE
arrangements.
Q
If we wait until the result of the May election could things be different?
A
Governors are assuming that whatever the outcome of the election legislation
and funding will not change, as there will not be the resources available to
build back a strong Local Authority function.
If the Local Authority was as strong as it was 5 years ago then the school
would not have to be making these choices.
If we don’t make this change on our own terms we will be forced at some
point to change our status, this would not benefit the children or staff.
Q
How many schools will be in the Trust?
A
Governors are working on a model of between 6-8 schools. There is
evidence to show that you need about 6 schools to create the environment to
share resources and skills but once you go beyond 8 it becomes unwieldy.
Q
How safe will staff be once they have moved out of Local Authority
employment?
A
Staff will be as safe as they are now. The school will continue to operate the
same policies and procedures and use the same terms and conditions. The
move to Foundation status will not change the amount of funding we receive,
however if funding does reduce in future that would be no different to
remaining with the Local Authority.
The Co-op College requires the Local Authority to give written assurance that
pensions and redundancy and premature retirements continue to be
supported. Governing Bodies still have to abide by National Conditions for
43
teaching staff and for support staff have to agree to pay and conditions being
the same or better. Local agreements should still be honoured.
Q
Who will the Governing Body be accountable to in the future?
A
The Governing Body will still be held to account on performance by Ofsted
and challenged by the Local Authority.
Q
If staff are expected to move between school sites in the Trust would this also
extend to cover for gaps or absences?
A
Staff will not be forced to move between school sites. There will be
opportunities for staff to move to extend their experience and add to their skill
sets.
Q
If staff move to another school would their terms change?
A
Staff would be seconded on their existing terms and conditions. There will
also be opportunities for non-teaching staff to visit other school sites to look at
other ways of working or share experience to solve problems.
Q
If staff are seconded who will oversee their performance management?
A
The secondment agreement will clearly set out the role, responsibilities and
performance management arrangements
Q
Who will hold pension records?
A
The Teachers’ Pension Authority will continue to be the pension provider and
will hold records for all staff. There will be a verification process for all staff
records and service prior to the TUPE-like transfer. There will also be a more
detailed workshop arranged for staff on terms and conditions once firm
decisions have been taken.
Q
Will there be a clause in any new starter contract that they could be moved
between worksites?
A
If staff are appointed with the expectation to work across different sites this
will be made clear in the advert and any post details.
Q
In future could there be teaching contracts for pool staff?
A
This is possible but it is unlikely that it would be in any significant number.
The experience from other Trusts is that pooling is generally for MAST type
support staff.
Q
Are schools to be approached to join the Trust on a geographical basis?
A
We are looking at similar local schools but this is not exclusive, schools from a
wider area could be considered but distance would need to be a factor. We
will still continue to work with the Triad.
Q
Could a school join from a different Local Authority area, for example
Derbyshire?
44
A
Yes. We could also tap into the network of Co-op Trust schools across the
country to share ideas and experience on teaching and learning.
45
Open Meeting/Parents and Carers Meeting (3), Sharrow School, Monday
16 March 2015, 6:00 - 6:45 pm
Attendees :
Parents
Governors
Headteacher
Co-op College
Clerk
2
Colin Havard
Evelyn Abram
Julie Bowdidge
Paul Haigh
CH gave input into the school’s rationale for the proposal and JB spoke about the
Co-operative involvement.
Questions raised during the meeting
Q
The intentions sound positive but what are the risks?
A
One risk is the Governors view on the future diminishing role of the Local
Authority, don’t see this as a significant risk to our proposal for change as the
risks are basically the same.
There is a risk that the focus will be on the Trust, to the detriment of the
school. Governors will ensure that the needs of the school are to the fore.
There is a risk that could choose the wrong partner, one who does not support
our vision or help us move forward. However, we will have procedures in
place to test this out before taking on any new partners.
There is a risk that by standing still the school will become vulnerable, being
pushed by the Local Authority or Ofsted towards Academy status or to join an
established Trust.
The Co-op College does try to negate risk by obtaining written assurances
from the Local Authority, for example on terms and conditions or trade union
involvement, and seeks a minimal amount of change.
Q
Does everyone become a member of the Co-op on transfer?
A
Yes this will be a membership scheme. The Articles of Association will
determine the area of inclusion, for example Sheffield as a whole.
Q
Who is on the Trust Board?
A
The Trust Board will be made up of the Chair of Governors and Headteacher
from each school, with representation from each partner and the Stakeholder
Forum. The actual numbers will be stated in the Articles of Association.
Q
Where will the decisions be made?
A
Decisions will remain at a Governing Body level with the Trust providing
support when approached.
46
Q
Why aren’t the specific details of why adopting the Co-op approach not set out
in the literature?
A
The Governing Body has been looking at the options for the past 2 years and
having not identified a better process for moving forward has taken the
decision to consult on the Co-op model. The school is currently sharing ideas
and experience through networking contacts but this is on an informal basis,
there is no security or commitment under this process and it is not sustainable
in the long term. The Co-op approach provides the means for the school to
have a more formal process in place with a legal framework for the long term
commitment.
Q
Are there any financial benefits to this approach?
A
There will be no impact on funding levels, the school will continue to receive
its share of delegated resources from the Local Authority.
Q
With regards improving standards will staff be shared with other schools in the
Trust?
A
Yes it is intended that staff will work across other school sites. As a single
school we have difficulty in recruiting and retaining outstanding teachers. The
Trust arrangement will allow us to grow our own outstanding teachers,
retaining them by providing opportunities for training and development across
a wider area.
Q
When the school goes out to the wider consultation will it have to set out the
other options and why the Trust model was selected?
A
The school will not be required to set out all the options. There is the detail
for the internal consultation.
Q
If the land and buildings transfer to the Trust what is the obligation on the
Local Authority to continue with maintenance?
A
The school will continue to be included in the LA asset management plans. In
looking at increasing the number in the Trust there is no intention for the
school to take on the liability for any poorly maintained building.
47
Sharrow School Council – Meeting about Co-operative Trust
Friday 6th March 2015
The School Council watched the DVD about Co-operatives
These are some of the questions asked/discussed
What does co-operative mean?
What is a Co-operative?
Why do we need to join something?
Who else is joining?
Does it cost us a lot?
What do we do when we get together?
What benefits will there be for us?
How does it work?
Will we have the same teachers?
What do the teachers think?
What do we need to do to become outstanding?
Is it the same as an Academy?
What is an Academy?
What does co-operative mean?
Will anything change if we become a co-operative trust?
Will it cost a lot of money to become a co-operative trust?
If one school wanted to do something would the other school have to do it?
How will we decide what things we need to work on as a co-operative trust?
Comparisons about how we can learn from each other – Y6 Council member
compared it to paired reading where someone who is the stronger reader is put with
another child to help them to make progress in their reading.
48
Joint School Councils’ meeting between Sharrow School and Broomhill Infant
School at Sharrow School, Wednesday 18th March, 10.15 am
Broomhill School Council were welcomed to the meeting.
Broomhill
8 children
Chair of Governors
Headteacher and another teacher
Sharrow
12 children
Headteacher and Deputy Headteacher
A Governor
Each group talked about their schools and what they liked about the schools. They
also talked about special events within school. Eg. Broomhill going to the Octagon
to take part in some dancing, Sharrow and all the clubs we have and Music Week.
Talked about what makes a good school
Great place to come to and meet with friends.
Fun whilst learning.
Staff who do not judge you and accept you for who you are.
How we could improve our schools
Sharrow to look at how they involve Reception, Year 1 and Year 2 in School Council
To learn from each other.
Teachers to visit each others’ school.
Teachers observing lessons and talking together.
Take each others’ lessons.
School Councils to meet together.
Share ideas about topics and trips.
Teachers who are struggling helping each other to become more confident.
It was agreed that Sharrow should visit Broomhill for a School Council session.
49
Appendix D - Letters of Response
There were no letters of response received by the close of the consultation on 27th
March 2015.
50
Appendix E – Local Authority assurances letter
Date
Cllr xxxx
Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Families
Sheffield City Council
Town Hall
Sheffield
S1 2HH
Dear xxxx
Re. Statutory Resolution for Sharrow school’s support staff to retain
membership of the Local Government Pension Scheme
As you will be aware Sharrow School is consulting to become a Foundation School
and acquire the Sheaf Co-operative Learning Trust. We are looking at a possible
implementation date for this on 1 September 2015, following final ratification by the
Governing Body.
The Governing Body agreed that I should write to the Local Authority requesting that
the City Council makes a statutory resolution allowing our support staff to retain
membership of the Local Government Pension Scheme. Please therefore accept this
letter as being the formal request from the Governing Body of Sharrow School that
the City Council makes this statutory resolution allowing our existing staff to remain
members of the Local Government Pension Scheme and new staff to join the
scheme.
The transfer of staff will take place under the provisions of the School Organisation
Regulations (Prescribed Alterations to Maintained Schools) (England) Regulations
2007. The Governing Body acknowledges that, although employer responsibilities
transfer from the City Council to the Governing Body, for South Yorkshire Pension
Authority (SYPA) pension purposes, the support staff are deemed to be in the
employment of the City Council.
In relation to the support staff the Governing Body therefore acknowledge and agree
to the following:

The Governing Body acknowledges that they will continue to pay the
employers contribution rate in line with that paid by the City Council, which will
be amended following any actuarial valuations by SYPA. This will therefore
continue to include any historic deficit which is currently included in the
contribution rate that the City Council as employer pays to the South
Yorkshire Pension Scheme.

As the support staff are deemed to be in the employment of the City Council
for pension purposes, this could result in financial liabilities falling on the Local
Authority. Therefore, we agree that the Local Authority should have the right
to be actively involved in decisions relating to those staff choosing to remain
in the LGPS and that the Local Authority has an entitlement to offer advice in
relation to premature retirement and redundancy payments which the
governing body must consider.
51

The Governing Body of the school agree to act in accordance with the
Sheffield City Council policy statement and Discretions of Employing Authority
document under the Local Government Pension Scheme Regulations - July
2010 (and any future amended version). This includes the delegation of any
decision arising from these discretions to the Chief Officer Panel or Director of
Human Resources, as appropriate. This would ensure that any decisions, and
consequent financial costs, in relation to pension discretions would continue
to be approved by the City Council rather than the Governing Body.

The Governing Body agree that, if any decision is taken by the Governing
Body which is outside the discretions authorised by the City Council and
without or against the advice of the Local Authority in relation to premature
retirements/redundancy payments for support staff, the Governing Body
would have to pay any additional costs through its own approved finances and
budget.
In relation to the teaching staff, the Governing Body also agree that, if any decision is
taken by the Governing Body which is outside the policy of the City Council and
without or against the advice of the Local Authority in relation to premature
retirements/redundancy payments for teaching staff, the Governing Body would have
to pay any additional costs through its own approved finances and budget.
In relation to all staff, the Governing Body note that the Local Authority does not
have any statutory entitlement to advise the Governing Body in relation to
dismissals. However, the Local Authority is liable to pay compensation or legal costs
following Employment Tribunal decisions related to staff of the school. The
Governing Body therefore acknowledge that the Local Authority may determine that
the costs associated with such action may be taken from the schools budget, if
appropriate guidance has not been sought and followed.
I trust the City Council will now act upon the Governing Body’s request and will
communicate the outcome of its decision to me at the earliest opportunity.
Yours sincerely
Chair of Governors
Sharrow School
Response is pending.
NB Broomill Infant School is already a Foundation school so no reassurances letter
is required.
52
Appendix F – Staffing protocol
A Protocol on Employees’ Terms and Conditions and Union Relations
1. The school will continue to adhere to the national and local conditions of service
currently in place for its existing employees and will continue to employ new staff on
these terms. All employees’ continuity of service will continue, and contracts will only
change in that the employer will become the Governing Body. Other contractual
details will remain the same.
2. Recognition of the same trade unions and professional associations will continue,
and the school will engage with the Unions in the same way in the future, in line with
existing local agreements.
3. The School believes that trade unions help ensure good employee relations, will
encourage employees to become union members and will inform new appointees
accordingly. The School will, on request, provide the trade unions with names and
work locations of new appointees.
4. The relevant unions are the teacher unions (ASCL, ATL, NAHT, NASUWT, NUT and
VOICE) and the unions representing support and other professional school staff
(GMB, UNISON and Unite).
5. Consultation on internal procedural matters and working and organisational
arrangements will be dealt with in the first instance by discussions with union
representatives within the school, who may ask for support from their local or
regional officers if they think this is necessary.
6. If the school in the future considers varying existing terms and conditions, or not
adopting variations agreed through the mechanism for negotiating between the Local
Authority and its employees, it will notify the local authority representatives of the
recognised unions, and will negotiate with them, through a forum consisting of
representatives of the school and internal and/or external representatives of each of
the recognised unions. In the unlikely event that there is a breakdown in negotiations
on terms and conditions, the matter may be referred to the Advisory Conciliation and
Arbitration Service (ACAS) in order to seek resolution of the issue. Either party may
determine that a matter is referred to ACAS for conciliation. Both parties may
subsequently agree, where necessary, that a matter is referred to ACAS for
arbitration. Whilst these procedures are being followed the School will honour the
status quo ante.
7. The school will write to all employees at the date of transfer to inform them that their
new employer is now the Governing Body and that their conditions of employment
will not change.
53
Appendix G – Unison/SCS National Agreement
National Framework Agreement between the Schools Co-operative Society and
UNISON
1. Introduction
UNISON and the Co-operative movement share many common values and
principles. We believe passionately that equality, solidarity, democracy and
social responsibility are the principles that should underpin our education
system.
Whilst both parties hold different policy positions on the issue of Community
schools we however, have a strong common interest in working together to
promote good employment and governance practices in schools.
To this end the Schools Co-operative Society and UNISON agree to work
together to produce a model national framework for the employment of school
support staff in Co-operative schools.
Co-operative schools share an ethos based on the co-operative values and
principles as defined in the International Co-operative Alliance Statement on
the Co-operative Identity (appended) and a governance structure that
engages key stakeholders including parents/carers, staff, learners and the
local community through membership.
2. Parties
This agreement is between the following parties:


The Schools Co-operative Society – on behalf of all Co-operative Schools;
and
UNISON – the recognised union for school support staff
3. National Joint Forum
To facilitate joint working UNISON and the Schools Co-operative Society
agree to establish a National Joint Forum (NJF).
The NJF will produce model support staff agreements and good practice
policies for implementation by Co-operative schools locally.
The Schools Co-operative Society and UNISON will actively promote the
implementation of these national agreements/policies by Co-operative
schools. Both parties agree that there should be full implementation of all
NJF agreements.
4.
Mechanics of the National Joint Forum
The NJF will meet not less than twice a year and will be made up of an equal
number of representatives from both the Schools Co-operative Society and
UNISON. (numbers to be determined at a later date).
Both UNISON and the Schools Co-operative Society will each nominate a
person to act as Joint Secretary to the NJF.
The Joint Secretaries will be responsible for producing draft model
agreements and good practice policies for discussion by the NJF.
Before national agreements/policies are agreed by the NJF they will be
subject to ratification by the appropriate lay committees in each organisation.
Once agreed the national agreement will then be sent to all Co-operative
schools with a clear recommendation from both parties that they should be
implemented, as a minimum, locally.
54
4. Principles and Coverage
The NJF will have the remit to produce model agreements and policies
covering, but not exclusively, the following support staff issues:









terms and conditions of employment
pay structures
pensions
employment policies and procedures
matters of health and safety
staff training and development
professional issues
equal opportunities matters
trade union recognition and facilities
In regard to these items UNISON and the Schools Co-operative Society agree
to recommend that all Co-operative Schools employ support staff on, as a
minimum, the national terms and conditions applicable to support staff
(currently NJC Green Book).
Both parties also agree to recommend that Co-operative Schools abide with,
as a minimum, the existing local agreements and policies (negotiated by
UNISON and their Local Authority) currently in place for school support staff.
It is also agreed that all Co-operative Schools should ensure continued
access to the Local Government Pension Scheme for all support staff – on the
same terms applying to those school support staff employed by the Local
Authority,
No member of staff employed by a Co-operative School should suffer any
detriment in relation to their terms and conditions of employment when
compared against those school support staff employed by the Local Authority.
6.
Support staff membership of Co-operative Schools
UNISON agrees to encourage all support staff working in Co-operative
Schools to become a member of the Trust.
7.
Procedure for Dealing with Unresolved Issues
In the event of the NJF failing to resolve an issue within its defined remit,
representatives of UNISON and the Schools Co-operative Society can, if they
mutually agree, refer the matter for conciliation, arbitration or any other form
of assistance.
In the event of local disagreement at a Co-operative school concerning the
interpretation or implementation of an NJF national agreement, the NJF Joint
Secretaries will be available to assist in resolving that disagreement if both
local parties agree to refer the matter to them.
8.
Variation
Variation to this agreement will be by agreement between the Schools Cooperative Society and UNISON.
Either the Schools Co-operative Society or UNISON may terminate this
agreement by giving twelve months notice in writing to the other party.
This agreement is not legally binding for either party.
55
Appendix
CO-OPERATIVE STATEMENT ON THE CO-OPERATIVE IDENTITY AS APPROVED AT THE ICA
CONGRESS, MANCHESTER, SEPTEMBER 1995
DEFINITION
A co-operative is an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common
economic, social, and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly-owned and democratically
controlled enterprise.
VALUES
Co-operatives are based on the values of self-help, self-responsibility, democracy, equality, equity
and solidarity. In the tradition of their founders, co-operative members believe in the ethical values of
honesty, openness, social responsibility, and caring for others.
PRINCIPLES
The co-operative principles are guidelines by which co-operatives put their values into practice.
1ST PRINCIPLE: VOLUNTARY AND OPEN MEMBERSHIP Co-operatives are voluntary
organisations, open to all persons able to use their services and willing to accept responsibilities of
membership, without gender, social, racial, political, or religious discrimination.
2ND PRINCIPLE: DEMOCRATIC MEMBER CONTROL Co-operatives are democratic organisations
controlled by their members, who actively participate in setting their policies and making decisions.
Men and women serving as elected representatives are accountable to the membership. In primary
co-operatives members have equal voting rights (one member, one vote), and co-operatives at other
levels are also organised in a democratic manner.
3RD PRINCIPLE: MEMBER ECONOMIC PARTICIPATION Members contribute equitably to, and democratically control, the capital of their co- operative. At least part of that capital is usually the
common property of the co-operative. Members usually receive limited compensation, if any, on
capital subscribed as a condition of membership. Members allocate surpluses for any of the following
purposes: developing their co-operative, possibly by setting up reserves, part of which at least would
be indivisible; benefiting members in proportion to their transactions with the co-operative; and
supporting other activities approved by the membership.
4TH PRINCIPLE: AUTONOMY AND INDEPENDENCE Co-operatives are autonomous, self-help
organisations controlled by their members. If they enter into agreements with other organisations,
including governments, or raise capital from external sources, they do so on terms that ensure
democratic control by their members and maintain their co-operative autonomy.
5TH PRINCIPLE: EDUCATION, TRAINING AND INFORMATION Co-operatives provide education
and training for their members, elected representatives, managers and employees so they can
contribute effectively to the development of their co-operatives. They inform the general public particularly young people and opinion leaders - about the nature and benefits of co-operation.
6TH PRINCIPLE: CO-OPERATION AMONG CO-OPERATIVES Co-operatives serve their members
most effectively and strengthen the Co-operative Movement by working together through local,
national, regional and international structures.
7TH PRINCIPLE: CONCERN FOR COMMUNITY Co-operatives work for the sustainable
development of their communities through policies approved by their members.
56
NASUWT/SCS National Agreement
Statement of Joint Principles between the Schools Co-operative Society and
the NASUWT
Preamble
The Schools Co-operative Society (SCS) and the NASUWT note the resolution of the
United Nations General Assembly 64/136 proclaiming 2012 as the International Year of
Co-operatives:
“Recognising that cooperatives, in their various forms, promote the fullest possible
participation in the economic and social development of all people, including women,
youth, older persons, persons with disabilities and indigenous peoples, are becoming a
major factor of economic and social development and contribute to the eradication of
poverty”.
The SCS and the NASUWT also note the Rio+20 2012 United Nations Conference on
Sustainable Development (UNCSD) final declaration which highlights the role of cooperatives in contributing to social inclusion and poverty reduction, in particular in
developing countries.
The parties recognise the contribution that co-operatives can and are making to lifting
and keeping people out of poverty through democratically owned enterprises as
recognised in International Labour Organisation (ILO) recommendation 193 ‘Promoting
Co-operatives’.
The parties recognise the important contribution of the NASUWT as a democratic,
inclusive and member-led representative trade union and respect the rights conferred on
the Union and its members under domestic law, and relevant ILO Conventions and the
UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights.
1 Introduction
1.1 The SCS and the NASUWT welcome the UN General Assembly resolution and
share many common values, believing that equality, solidarity, democracy and social
responsibility should be the foundation of our education system.
1.2 Both parties have a strong common interest in working together to promote good
employment and governance practices in schools and in Agreement between the
Schools Co-operative Society and the NASUWT ensuring that education and schools
remain democratically-controlled and accountable for the public good
1.3 Both parties fully support the ethos of co-operative schools which are based on the
co-operative values and principles as agreed by the International Co-operative
Alliance. The co-operatives values are: self-help, self-responsibility, democracy,
equality, equity and solidarity are central to this, and in the tradition of their founders,
co-operative members believe in the ethical values of honesty, openness, social
responsibility and caring for others.
57
.
1.4 The SCS and the NASUWT agree to work together to ensure that schools serve the
best interests of children and young people, parents and carers, the workforce and
the wider community.
1.5 The parties recognise that the co-operative models developed enable these key
stakeholder groups to have a central role in the governance of schools, and as such
will actively encourage their members to promote them.
2 The Parties
2.1 This statement of joint principles is between the following parties:
(a) The Schools Cooperative Society; and
(b) NASUWT.
3 Joint Principles
3.1 The SCS and the NASUWT have a shared commitment to education as a
democratically accountable public service which operates in the public interest.
3.2 We believe that high-quality, fully funded state education is at the heart of a
democratic and inclusive society. Schools are essential public services. They give
expression to the needs and aspirations of individuals, communities and the wider
society. The SCS and the NASUWT express a joint commitment to ensuring that
schools are democratically accountable, operate in the public interest, advance
equality and social cohesion, are owned by the co-operative’s members and are
managed and delivered in trust to the public.
3.3 We endorse without reservation the founding principles of public services: universal
access, delivery according to need, services free at the point of use, and services
delivered for the public good and not for private profit.
3.4 In addition, we are committed to working together with schools to promote:
Agreement between the Schools Co-operative Society and the NASUWT
(i) access to all applicable national entitlements for the workforce in schools;
(ii) full and appropriate engagement, consultation and negotiation with the
NASUWT;
(iii) recognition of the NASUWT;
(iv) membership and engagement in the NASUWT as part of our commitment to
work with the trade union movement;
(v) membership and engagement in the SCS.
4 Joint Commitment
4.1 The NASUWT and the SCS are committed to working together to further and deepen
our relationship over time in providing advice, information and support to schools.
4.2 Both parties will work together to promote to SCS members solutions which facilitate
democratic engagement and trade union representation.
4.3 Both organisations are committed to working together with openness, honesty,
integrity and with respect for confidentiality.
4.4 The NASUWT will encourage its members to join and become active members of
SCS.
4.5 Whilst the NASUWT remains opposed in principle to academies, where schools are
58
consulting on conversion to academies, with the intention to convert, NASUWT will
press such schools to use the co-operative model to safeguard stakeholder
sovereignty in governance and public and community accountability.
4.6 The SCS is committed to involving within its national and regional decision-making
structures representatives of the NASUWT.
4.7 The NASUWT is committed to involving within its national and/or local decisionmaking structures representatives of the Schools Cooperative Society.
4.8 The NASUWT and the SCS will encourage its member schools to establish
appropriate local arrangements for representation by the NASUWT and SCS.
Agreement between the Schools Co-operative Society and the NASUWT
5 Variation
5.1 Variation to this agreement will be by agreement between the Schools Cooperative
Society and the NASUWT
This Agreement is hereby
signed by the Parties on
18 July 2012
Dave Boston
Chief Executive
Schools Cooperative
Society
Chris Keates
General Secretary
NASUWT
59