Introduction

Council documents are often long, confusing and (in our experience) regularly include misrepresentations and errors. It can take a long time to go through them, so it is a good idea (if you can) to get a group of people together to read and scrutinise the different sections and underlying arguments, policy documents etc. If you think something important is missing from a document there is every chance you are right. The information below has been put together to help with this process. If you have questions about any part of this advice or recommendations to improve it, please do get in touch. By working together we can protect education in Hackney.

Underlying issues

The UK currently has the largest class sizes in Europe by some margin, with a national target of 30 pupils per class. It is worth noting that this number (30) is not determined by any educational factors – it is the highest number of children that can legally be taught in an average-sized classroom. In other words, our children’s education is being run on the basis of maximum possible use of space, not whether a larger class size is good for the education of a child. As would be expected, studies show that smaller classes have major benefits for children, allowing greater per-pupil attention and tailoring of teaching (not to mention better teaching conditions for staff). The vacancy rate in Hackney primary schools is currently around 20%, which if averaged over all schools would result in class sizes of 24 pupils – the size of the next largest in Europe (Ireland – all other countries in Europe are less than this). The NEU is currently campaigning for a mandatory reduction to 26 places in each class. 

As pupil premium (the amount each school receives per pupil) has been falling in real terms since 2010 and is expected to cover more each year as costs go up, schools need to continually increase numbers of pupils in order to be financially sustainable (see the NEU’s calculations and Schools Cuts website for more details on this, links below). In many ways this is the underlying factor in all of the ‘falling rolls’ proposals to remove provision: central government need to improve the funding for all levels of childcare provision. Sadly, neither the current Conservative government (or what is expected to be next, Labour) have committed to any such increase in funding. We should all be asking our elected representatives why no such pledge has been made.

Added to this, the Greater London Authority (GLA) has predicted a fall in London’s birth rates (and therefore number of school age children) over the next few years, stabilising (and rising) again by the end of the decade. It is these statistics that Hackney Council are relying upon to draw up their proposals to reorganise childcare provision (at all ages, from Children’s Centres to primary and secondary schools). This is despite, as recently as 2015/6, the GLA predicting a steadily rising child population in London and a shortage of school places: a prediction that lead to a number of  Free Schools being given permission to open in Hackney. The overall Hackney Council strategy is outlined in their ‘Education Sufficiency and Estate Strategy, 2021-2031’ document (link below). 

It is worth noting that staffing costs are the most significant costs incurred by a school in its annual budget (at around 80% staffing costs are much more than building-related and other expenses). This should be kept in mind when assessing claims to cost reduction. This is also particularly important when considering how Free Schools might generate bigger profit margins (i.e. by reducing staffing costs) and what this means for schools looking to limit their own costs – not least because more experienced teachers will be on a higher pay level, whereas lesser or unqualified teaching staff will cost a school less. By driving down costs because of underfunding, the likely consequences are a loss of teaching experience and ever larger class sizes (see ‘Staffing’, below).

Types of education provision

The language around education provision and how it is structured can be confusing. This section is an attempt to clarify some of the different names / types of provision.

Early years (pre-school):
Many nurseries are independently run, but receive degrees of state funding for childcare place entitlement. This is currently 15 hours per week payable from the term after a child turns 2, followed by 30 ‘free’ hours for children aged 3-4. There is also a ‘tax free’ allowance that can subsidise childcare costs, some holiday clubs, wrap around care and other services. This entitlement is currently increasing to cover children from 9 months in September. There is a staffing crisis in Early Years provision and widespread concerns that these changes are not sufficiently funded by central government and will therefore undermine most providers’ financial models / force them to refuse to provide funded places as to do so would be unsustainable. Increasingly primary schools provide early year care (particularly for children aged 3-4). Children’s Centres are cheaper than independent providers as they receive funding from the local council and they offer a range of provisions and services (from full- and part-time childcare to a wide range of other parenting services, guidance and provision), giving those on lower income crucial access to childcare and support.

Primary schools:
Primary schools in the UK are either privately owned and run (also called ‘independent schools’) or receive funding on a per-pupil basis. Typically the amount of funding a school receives each year is determined by the number of pupils on the school’s roll (attending the school) at the time of the October census. The amount each pupil is allocated is adjusted depending on other circumstances (extra funding is allocated for pupils on free school meals, for example, or in relation to Special Educational Needs and Disabilities / ‘SEND’ – see below). Schools that receive state funding are broadly divided into three groups:

Community (or ‘local authority maintained’) schools, who receive their funding through the local authority (generally the local council), are overseen by the local authority and follow the National Curriculum. Increasingly community schools are entering into ‘federation’ (partnership) with other community schools to enable them to share costs, staff and resources. The local authority can also determine to close a school (after consultation), but it cannot open (or re-open) a community school because of ‘free school presumption’ (see below).

Faith schools (or ‘non-maintained schools’) receive their funding through the local authority and follow the National Curriculum, but they are allowed to set a different curriculum for religious studies and are able to set admission criteria (often based on faith observance, for example). ‘Non-maintained schools’ have often received founding grants (or school buildings) from a faith organisation (for Church of England schools, often the local diocese) which in effect manage the schools and liaise with the local authority regarding any structural changes (admissions, number of places offered (PAN), opening / closure of schools). Though the faith organisation in effect manages a non-maintained school, the local authority can request changes (e.g. to pupil admission numbers) or indeed to determine whether they are sustainable. This is particularly important as the vacancy rates in faith schools in Hackney is much higher than in other types of provision.

Academy and ‘free’ schools:
The first academy schools were established by the last Labour government, controversially taking some existing (‘failing’) schools under central government control. Academy schools receive their funding directly from central government and operate largely independent from local authority control as they are run by privately-operated Multi-Academy Trusts (MATs). ‘Free’ schools, introduced by the Conservatives, dramatically expanded this model: under current legislation, all new schools are automatically established as ‘free’ schools and privately operated (see ‘free school presumption’, below). Community schools can decide to join a MAT, thereby ‘converting’ to an Academy, or they can be forced to: all schools now judged ‘inadequate’ by Ofsted are forced to become academies and run by a private company. Ofsted’s role in this process, which is effectively the forced privatisation of schools, is far from uncontroversial.

Both ‘academy/academy converter’ and ‘free’ schools do not have to follow the National Curriculum, are funded directly (on a per-pupil basis) by central government and operate beyond local authority control, making it much harder for a local authority to maintain appropriate place numbers  / provision in the borough. Excess places in Hackney, for example, can largely be seen as a consequence of the opening of a number of free schools (green-lit by central government) in 2014-16. ‘Free’ schools are controversial as they are privately-run and use the same per-pupil premium to generate dividends and high management fees (‘profit’, in other words) for the companies that run them.

The main cost that a MAT can reduce to generate these additional fees is staffing i.e. hiring teachers with less experience or qualifications. Some of these companies (Multi Academy Trusts / ‘MATs’) have also been criticised for evading scrutiny, being run offshore, and having problematic management structures and policies (see the controversy around BPET, which operates in Hackney, for example). It is also useful to note that when a school becomes an academy, the local authority surrenders the land and school buildings to the privately-run MAT on a long lease at peppercorn (minimal / token) rent, thereby losing control of the land, buildings and education provision in the school to a private entity without the local authority benefiting financially from its estate.

Secondary schools:
Whilst the same types of provision exist in secondary as in primary, the majority of secondary school provision in Hackney is at academy and free schools (there is only one community / local authority secondary school in the borough). With the recent (voluntary) conversion of Haggerston School to an academy (technically an ‘academy convertor’), Hackney currently has 9 academies, 5 voluntary aided (faith) schools, 1 community school and 1 free school at secondary level. As with primary schools, secondary school class sizings are steadily rising out of financial necessity, whilst falling numbers work their way through the primary sector.

There are also a small number of Independent Schools that operate outside of local or central government funding system (in effect ‘private schools’). In Hackney these are predominantly privately-run faith schools.

Additionally there are specialist schools in Hackney at both primary and secondary level, not least for pupils with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND). A number of local authority schools also have specialised SEND provision as part of their offer in Additionally Resourced Provision (ARP) units. Hackney currently has a SEND provision crisis, a lack in places that costs the borough millions each year in outsourced (often out-of-borough) private provision, at the cost of around £35-70,000 per pupil per year (a cost to Hackney of around £4 million in 2022-23). Though Hackney Council is currently creating additional SEND places in the local authority system, the current and projected demand for these places greatly outstrips this provision: the Council’s Education Sufficiency and Estates Strategy (link below) identifies 460 pupils being sent out of borough currently, with an additional 336 forecast for 2023, and an additional 168 per year subsequently. The disastrous effect of closing schools with integrated SEND provision and the shortage of suitable in-borough places is all too clear for families affected by the current primary school closures. The added yearly cost to Hackney Council of privatised SEND provision is four times as large as the current budget shortfalls in the borough’s primary schools.

Staffing

Hackney has excellent teaching and support staff delivering excellent results. By closing well-performing schools, and implicitly replacing them with privately-run free schools, Hackney risks a drain of talent and experience in its education provision. As one would expect, highly qualified and experienced staff cost more as their salaries will have increased over time: redundancy therefore risks being triply damaging – traumatising staff, losing skilled staff from the system and making the borough unattractive as a place to work. (For more on this see the NEU links below).

Consultations on changes to education provision

This section aims to clarify how local authorities can change education provision in the borough – either by setting (e.g. limiting) the number of places a school offers (known as PAN, or the Published Admissions Number) or by opening or closing schools. The question of ‘merging’ or ‘amalgamating’ schools, and its impossibility, is also addressed below.

The local authority can determine the number of places a local authority school (community and, by arrangement, non-maintained/faith schools) offers in each year. This is the PAN (Published Admissions Number) of the school. Normally this is a multiple of 30 (a full single form / class size), though class sizes can be limited to 15 where advantageous to a school or owing to low enrolment. Often in this case two year groups will be combined (known as ‘vertical integration’, e.g. Year 1 and Year 2 would be taught by the same teacher in the same classroom). The PAN is determined by the local authority normally well in advance of when any change takes place and is subject to consultation. However, schools can ‘unofficially’ (ie. temporarily / without public consultation) manage their own PAN when required: most normally for financial stability. With current falling roll numbers (numbers of pupils) in Hackney primary schools, a number of schools have voluntarily and ‘unofficially’ capped PAN to reduce staffing costs. This is described as ‘unofficial’ as, though this temporary capping of PAN has been made in agreement with the local authority, the official PAN of the school has not been changed by legislation.

‘Free school presumption’ and ‘mergers’ / ‘amalgamations’

The majority (if not all) of the consultations so far conducted in London that propose significant changes to education provision are framed in terms of ‘merger’ (or ‘amalgamation’) or closure. This was the case with the recent consultation on primary school provision in Hackney. However, this terminology is (deliberately) misleading. Since the Education Act of 2011, when the Conservative government introduced ‘free school presumption’, a local authority has been unable to open community (i.e. local authority-run) schools at either primary or secondary level. Under this legislation, all new schools are automatically (‘presumed to be’) free schools. Free schools can only be established by private organisations: local authorities cannot form their own MAT (‘multi-academy trust’) – the only bodies that can apply to establish (or indeed take over) and run a school.

It would reasonably be expected that a proposal to ‘merge’ or ‘amalgamate’ two schools onto one school site would result in a school that shares both staff and pupils from the two ‘merged’ schools and therefore reflect a shared community and ethos. Under previous legislation the two ‘merged’ (or ‘amalgamated’ – it is unclear why local authorities interchangeably use these two terms) schools would have been closed, and a new school created (with, amongst other things, a new Department of Education Roll / Identification Number.) This would then allow for the hiring of a mix of staff from the two ‘merged’ schools as a new school (i.e. employer) would have been created. However, as a local authority cannot set up new local authority schools (under ‘free school presumption’, see above), a ‘merger’ or ‘amalgamation’ that combines staff, pupils and ethos is not possible. A local authority can only close one school and suggest that pupils go to another school (where existing staff will be protected by their contracts, and preferential hiring, if required, cannot be imposed). Council documents (and responses to public questions) issued during the recent primary school consultations consistently failed to clarify this point – either to staff, families, elected officials or the public being consulted.

One further risk of this process (as touched on above) is that experienced staff of a closing school are likely to be at a higher pay scale than recently qualified teaching staff, and therefore likely to find staying in the borough to teach increasingly hard as all schools look to reduce their expenditure. This likely loss of staff and teaching experience is unaccounted for in Council proposals and one further risk to education in the borough.

Greater London Authority / ‘GLA’ population projections

Hackney Council consistently cites the GLA’s (Greater London Authority’s) population projections as the underlying basis for proposed changes in education and childcare provision. Primary school enrollments in Hackney have declined since a peak in 2017. Current GLA figures predict a slow decline in birthrates and school-age population in the coming years, rising back to pre-2024 levels by 2031. This represents an overall trend across central London boroughs, though without action by Hackney Council it has the potential to become a permanent and increasing problem. Hackney’s own negative projections are dominated by the pupils lost from the Hackney school system each year by people moving out of the borough (which it estimates at 200 pupils per year). Indeed, Hackney Council regularly refers to the projected population of Hackney becoming increasingly dominated by single young professionals living alone or cohabiting in (increasingly expensive) rental accommodation in the years ahead. It is worth emphasising however that this is a political choice: the GLA’s own Population Yield tools clearly show that delivering family-sized social housing would sustain, indeed increase, the number of children living in the borough whilst slowing the flight of families away from Hackney in the face of rising rental prices. (The same tools also show that the ‘genuinely affordable housing’, as it is termed by Hackney Council and which it prioritises over social housing, will not achieve this: the associated unsustainable rental costs are treated the same as market rates in the GLA’s calculations.)

It should also be noted that housing plans including social housing commitments already adopted by Hackney Council (for example, the extensive Dalston Plan) are not reflected in the GLA’s calculations as these have not yet passed the planning stage, even though the Council identifies them as short- to mid-term (between 5 and 10 year) commitments. (The Save Colvestone campaign worked out the GLA’s projected ‘child yield’ for the Dalston Plan in their September 2023 submission to the Primary Schools consultation and accessible from their campaign website – link below.)

Hackney Families are particularly concerned that stripping away primary school provision and, as is currently proposed, Children’s Centres, whilst failing to deliver pledged and additional social housing in the borough will contribute in a death spiral of families away from Hackney (a consequence described in much of the news coverage of the primary schools proposals). It is perhaps too cynical to suggest that increasing the proportion of single, young professionals in the borough – individuals less likely to draw on council services like education, health and social care etc. and so less expensive for the borough than families – is part of a deliberate scheme to limit council spending at the expense of families, but this will only be disproved by Hackney’s Labour Council enacting policies that work to protect families and their capacity to live in the borough.

Consultations – General Guidance

General: Legal conditions for a consultation / Gunning, what follows: access to information / FOIs (engagement with democratic process)
To make changes to education provision (eg. size / number of classes in a school, or to close schools) the local council must hold a consultation. There is specific statutory guidance for holding consultations which is backed by legal precedent. This covers how and when consultations should be conducted, what rights all parties have, and how decisions should be made following consultations. This short guide is an attempt to demystify this process as it is often confusing and the way consultations are presented are often inadequate (if not potentially illegal). This guide will also touch on how they can be challenged, by whom and on what grounds. This information has been gathered from recent experience in the primary schools closures campaign and legal advice taken during that consultation, and will likely be added to following the legal challenges being prepared by the Save Hackney Children’s Centres campaign. It does not claim to be exhaustive, and further legal advice is very welcome (do please contact us directly at hackneyfamilies@gmail.com if you can help.) It does however aim to give a broad overview of what is expected of (and often neglected by) local authorities when they ‘consult’.

Statutory Guidance

The link to the Statutory Guidance that relates to changes in school provision (opening and closing maintained / community schools) can be found in the links below. It is a relatively short and plainly-written document, and Hackney’s own policy documents incorporate elements of it directly – though it should be noted they are responsible to follow all elements of the guidance. 

Any local council that wants to close a school is under a legal obligation to consult the public (and consult in a meaningful and open manner – see ‘Legal responsibilities: Consultations’ below). The Statutory Guidance, as it is incorporated into Hackney Council’s own policy document on schools provision under which the current proposals to close schools falls (Hackney Council’s adopted ‘CE S190 Education Sufficiency and Estate Strategy’, linked below), emphasises that should a school be required to reopen in the future it would open as a free school under ‘free school presumption.’ Hackney Council’s ‘Estate Strategy’ policy document advises that this eventuality should specifically be avoided, in view of the legal obligation that the Council has to provide education places for all of its residents and that free schools operate outside of its control. The Statutory Guidance also recommends that proposals are made during term time to allow for sufficient time for affected communities to inform their responses.

The Statutory Guidance stresses to local authorities the need to consider the possibility that demand for a school will exist in the medium- to long-term future and if such a potential need is identified a school should be retained. This timeframe is established in other Council documents to mean 5-10 years (‘medium term’) and 10-15 years (‘long term’). This is particularly relevant when considering the impact of local building projects (for example, the Dalston Plan – see above) and the additional demand for places that these projects will produce. It is also worth noting that large-scale housing developments would also likely produce financial benefits / additional revenue for schools (i.e. local infrastructure) through Section 106 / CIL levies.

Legal responsibilities: Consultations

In addition to adhering to the Statutory Guidance, and indeed the local council policy document under which a consultation is being held, local councils undertaking public consultations have a large number of additional responsibilities that they should observe, each of which is protected by law. This is not an exhaustive list, and appropriate legal advice (and, potentially, representation) should be sought to establish relevant case law in each specific case. There are however a number of general precedents that a local council has an obligation in law to observe when conducting a consultation / providing for the education of children. Recent legal challenges (by the Save Colvestone and the Save Hackney Children’s Centres campaigns) in Hackney have identified and asserted a large number of potential breaches of these obligations by Hackney Council, and their submissions go into greater specifics than we do here.

The basic requirements of a lawful consultation process are established by case law and known as the Gunning or Sedley principles. They are:

1. Consultation must be at a time when the proposals are at a formative stage.

2. The proposer must give sufficient reason for any proposal to permit intelligent consideration and response.

3. Adequate time must be given for consideration and response.

4. The product of the consultation must be conscientiously taken into account in finalising any proposals.

Aside from the overwhelmingly negative consultation responses to the primary school proposals (over 90% against) that were ignored by Hackney Council, apparently in violation of Principle 4, other objections have focussed on Principles 1 and 2. In the first instance (wording taken from Save Colvestone campaign’s Pre-Action Letter to Judicial Review) “it is not a formative stage where an option of central significance has already been excluded or where a definite solution has evolved”, and in the second “a consultation document must present the issues in a way that facilitates an effective response; the scope of the consultation must be clear and the non-disclosure of information can, depending on the circumstances , make the consultation unlawful.” (For specific details of these complaints in relation to the primary schools consultation, see the full Save Colvestone pre-action letter on their website). In their pre-action letter the Save Colvestone campaign listed a number of material considerations that had been overlooked, challenging the informed nature of both the proposals and the failure of the consultation to permit an informed response (from either Councillors or members of the public). These related to financial data (or lack thereof), planning, SEND, and community impact. See also ‘Access to process and information’, below. 

The local council, in allowing for informed responses to consultation (Principle 2), should also make clear what information is being sought from those being consulted: laying out what, in effect, it wants to know, and how this information will affect its conclusions / final decision(s). It should also show how as wide a community of stakeholders as possible has been engaged and how democratic participation has been enabled – through advertising, meetings, translations of relevant documents, disclosure of relevant information etc. As is made clear by the above, any consultation should have a range of possible outcomes (‘formative stage’) and it should be clear how decisions will be made and what information will inform them.

The local authority in addition has a set of responsibilities in relation to equality, as defined in the Public Sector Equality Duty (‘PSED’). Though only briefly summarised here, this Duty (and subsequent legal precedents) establish the necessity of councils to pay (substantive) due regard to protected characteristics of race, gender, faith, disability, health etc. in discharging their duties and also to record the steps by which they have ensured compliance throughout the consultation and decision-making process. In the case of Colvestone, for example, it was claimed that the Council failed to comply with the PSED on the basis of SEND and impact of pupils with SEND and / or EHCP plans, and the failure to consider the increased levels of pollution at the proposed ‘merger’ school site. Additional relevant protections are provided for in the Human Rights Act (1998) and the European Convention of Human Rights (‘EHCR’) which prohibits discrimination and assures the right to acces to education that conforms to parents “religious and philosophical convictions”.

Further, when conducting a public consultation a local authority ‘must avail themselves of relevant information and ask relevant questions when making a decision’. The so-called ‘Tameside Principle’ clarifies the legal responsibility of the local authority to have all the necessary (and reasonable) information to make a decision, and can be challenged on this basis if it can be shown that relevant information has been lacking or not considered. This includes the necessity of consulting external organisations where relevant, and the range of information required is reflected by the scale of the consequence of the decision. To make a decision without seeking and considering all information that might reasonably considered necessary, or to make a decision that could reasonably be considered irrational given the information available, is therefore challengeable under the Tameside case law or Wednesbury case law (where conclusions don’t follow from the premise, for example).

The 1996 Education Act outlines the local council’s obligations regarding education provision. Principally there must be education provision for each child in the borough (though as Hackney has sought to emphasise in the Children’s Centres consultation, this provision does not have to be directly provided by the local authority, but it must be reasonably established that it exists in the borough and provided if it does not). Further, “the schools available for an area shall not be regarded as sufficient for the purposes of of subsection (1) unless they are sufficient in number, character and equipment to provide for all pupils the opportunity of appropriate education.” 

Hackney Council currently stretch the ‘local’ nature of this provision to the maximum walking distance legally allowed (which varies with age) and, though a local authority is not beholden to make sure preferred education contexts are available to all families, it is beholden to provide for a range of different educational settings to satisfy ‘parental choice.’ There is some frustration, for example, with the fact that Hackney Education will generally fail to differentiate between faith and non-faith provision, treating it as the same thing, in a borough that overwhelmingly desires non-faith education according to the council’s own figures.

Access to process and information

There is an ‘presumption of openness’ on every local council (particularly when holding a consultation, and therefore it is particularly frustrating when information has been withheld or delayed when requested – particularly given that any consultation is time-sensitive.  When, as is often the case, information requested from elected officials or civil servants is not forthcoming, members of the public can request information either by submitting a Freedom of Information Request, asking your local councillor to ask for the information on your behalf (as ‘casework’), or both. The ‘presumption of openness’ dictates that the local authority should respond with the requested information within a prompt timeframe unless it can show that it does not have the information or that it has very good reasons to keep the information out of the public domain. There are limited reasons for a local authority to refuse disclosure: personal information, for example, or internal legal advice is generally exempt, but not always, and reasons should be given for non-disclosure. Historic deeds for buildings (and the potential covenants and protections that they contain, common with educational buildings and not necessarily known by the Land Registry, hence the importance of viewing original documents) are not exempt from information requests – and may be particularly relevant if the local authority might need to sell school buildings / sites to produce revenue.

Sadly, most information requests take a long time to produce a response. If you do not get a response, or you consider the response inadequate, you should immediately request an internal review of the FOI, ‘in advance of a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office (‘ICO’).’ and, if necessary, pursue a complaint to the ICO. The campaigns we have spoken to have uncovered information crucial to their cases only after challenging initial responses that failed to disclose requested information. It is important to stress in consultation-related FOI requests that information is being sought such that you can engage in a democratic process (a public consultation) and therefore that the request should also be considered time-sensitive / urgent.

Full Council meetings and Cabinet meetings are open to the public as standard, and you can register to ask questions from the floor on the day at Town Hall. The leader of the opposition can also ask questions at Cabinet. In 2023 Mayor Woodley voted through an amendment to council policy reducing the amount of time that could be allocated to questions and answers on a single issue in a council meeting from 30 minutes to 15 minutes. Though some allowance was given in the case of the discussion of the primary schools proposals, at the final Cabinet meeting where decisions were passed this time was extended only to 30 minutes (to discuss the permanent closure of four local authority primary schools). This is of course highly restrictive in terms of democratic engagement, and therefore preparation is key. Pre-reads and questions can be sent in advance to most meetings (normally to the Governance Officer named on the meeting schedule.) Meeting information can be found on the Hackney Council website, and the meeting agenda / issues to be discussed and supporting reports etc. should normally be online linked to the meetings calendar at least a week in advance. Meetings are recorded and live-streamed (both on Youtube, link in the meeting details online as above). Councillors can also make depositions (make statements / ask for debates) on specific issues on your behalf, but this of course requires the support of your local or an opposition councillor.

Major consultations are also subject to Scrutiny, a process where consultations and decision-making processes of either full council or Cabinet are scrutinised and debated. The Children and Young People Scrutiny Panel is made up of non-Cabinet members and is asked to hear evidence and prepare its own report to inform each education consultation. Their reports and recordings of the individual sessions are accessible online through the Meetings Calendar. Decisions that have been made by Cabinet or Full Council can also be ‘Called In’ to a Scrutiny process if at least 5 councillors request it based on a specific set of criteria. This is the Council’s process of holding its decision making to account, though currently as decisions are generally ‘called in’ to scrutiny by the opposition party councillors, the scrutiny panel is entirely made up of Labour councillors and its impartiality questionable at best. We strongly recommend, at minimum, asking local councillors to work on your behalf and to vote accordingly if they fail to represent you.

Legal Challenges and Timing

The consultation to close primary schools revealed another anti-democratic tendency: the process itself appeared to many to be designed to be as destabilising and damaging as possible to schools in frame such that the proposals for some were tragically self-fulfilling. One school in frame, for example, lost over 100 pupils following the announcement of the consultation and prior to a decision being made.

Further, it is difficult to challenge a process legally (and this means taking the decision to Judicial Review, for example on the legal grounds outlined above, for example) whilst the consultation is still in process as most local authorities would claim that any ‘errors’ can be corrected in the process and only a final decision is challengeable. This delay ultimately led to Legal Aid being refused for the Save Colvestone campaign as it had effectively been timed out. However this position deserves scrutiny and challenge (again legal clarification would be appreciated on this point). The Save Hackney Children’s Centres campaign may well test the legality of this position, a move essential for the Judicial Review process to allow access to justice in these, and similar, education consultations.

This guidance is non-exhaustive and very much a work in progress. We would hugely appreciate any advice and clarifications. We are a family-led organisation and do not claim to be professionals (though a number of us have taken professional advice, we would greatly appreciate hearing from more expert opinion). We would love you to join us and help us continue the fight to protect Hackney’s families in whatever capacity you feel able. Please get in touch!

Links continually updated – let us know what should be here

Campaign to Save Hackney’s Children’s Centres:
https://savehackneyschildrenscentres.wordpress.com/

Save Colvestone Primary School campaign website:
https://www.savecolvestone.com/

Save Hackney’s Children’s Centre Nurseries CrowdJustice crowdfunder:
https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/save-hackneys-childrens-centre/

Children’s Centres consultation (closed April 24th 2024)
https://consultation.hackney.gov.uk/children-education/childrens-centres-consultation/

NEU school funding statements (real terms cuts since 2010):
https://neu.org.uk/latest/press-releases/updated-school-cuts-data

NEU funding calculator / Schools Cuts website:
https://schoolcuts.org.uk/

NEU school places / class size campaign:
https://neu.org.uk/advice/classroom/class-sizes

London Renters Union:
https://londonrentersunion.org/

Save Colvestone campaign website (with links to consultation submissions):
https://www.savecolvestone.com/

Labour policy document / strategic plan:
We await a thorough policy document from the Labour Party as to how systemic funding shortfalls in education will be addressed and hope that this will be a central issue in their election manifesto. Announcements as they are made will be posted here. In Hackney the opposition parties with elected councillors are the Green Party and the Conservative Party.
https://labour.org.uk/updates/stories/labours-plan-for-schools/

Statutory guidance – ‘Opening and Closing Maintained Schools’, Jan 2023:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1131568/Opening_and_closing_maintained_schools_Jan_2023.pdf

Cabinet office ‘Consultation Principles: Guidance’ for consultations:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/consultation-principles-guidance

Types of school (UK Government):
https://www.gov.uk/types-of-school

Links to local MP / councillor emails and Cabinet members (find and contact your councillor):

Note: Hackney has a directly elected Mayor who compiles their own Cabinet of Councillors with specific briefs. The current Mayor of Hackney is Caroline Woodley. The Cabinet member with responsibility for Education, Young People and Children’s Social Care is Cllr Anntoinette Bramble, under whose instruction proposals have been drawn up to close primary schools and children’s centres. Councillors are supported by civil servants working for Hackney Education.

https://hackney.gov.uk/your-councillors

https://hackney.gov.uk/cabinet

Make a Freedom of Information (FOI) request here:
https://hackney.gov.uk/foi-request

Make an FOI request complaint to the Information Commissioner's Office here:
https://ico.org.uk/make-a-complaint/foi-and-eir-complaints/foi-and-eir-complaints/