Holland Park parents announce potential legal challenge against its move to join United Learning

Parents at a high-profile school, whose governors are proposing to transfer control of it to England’s largest multi-academy trust, have set out the basis of a legal challenge against the move.

The Holland Park School Parents Collective (HPSPC) are threatening to launch a bid for judicial review against its governing body’s in-principle decision for the school in West London to join the 75-academy United Learning Trust(ULT).

The parents, who have taken advice from barristers, are arguing that the choice to join ULT, which was made subject to “due diligence”, was illegal on the grounds that the community had not been consulted, and because the board was not properly constituted at the time it was made.

The detail

Holland Park, a large comprehensive which is sometimes described as the “Socialist Eton” and which had been led by one of the most highly-paid headteachers in England, has been in public turmoil since last year, when allegations surfaced that it suffered from a “toxic” working environment.

Much of the single academy trust’s board changed last September, with Jane Farrell appointed as chair of trustees and four other directors – all of which, as does Farrell, have multi-academy trust links – arriving in that month. In November, the Ofsted-outstanding secondary was handed a Notice to Improve by the government. This stated that governors should consider joining a MAT.

On Monday, March 14^th, parents at Holland Park were told in a letter from Farrell that the governing body had entered into a “due diligence process” with its preferred partner, the ULT, which is based in Peterborough.

On Friday, April 1^st, the governing body further wrote to parents, setting out a process of “stakeholder engagement” around the process to select ULT.

In a letter to the governing body which it said had been prepared “in accordance with the Judicial Review Pre-Action Protocol”, and in consultation with barristers at Matrix Chambers, HPSPC said that the level of consultation around the decision to enter into “due diligence” had been “unlawful”.

This was because, first, the current “stakeholder engagement” process was being entered into only after “the governing body has effectively decided it must enter into a MAT with UL by 1 September 2022”; and because local stakeholders had not been provided with meaningful information about the consideration of alternatives to a MAT, and alternatives to United.

And, second, because Holland Park’s articles of association – its constitution – stipulated that this single academy trust should have two elected parents, but it was not in that position when the decision to enter into due diligence with ULT had been taken.

This latter position is clear, since the trust had had only one parent governor – John Bercow, the former speaker of the House of Commons – on it since December, when the previous parent governor, Bercow’s wife, Sally, had stood down.

Parent governor elections had been scheduled to take place in January, before the decision to go with ULT had been taken. But in the event, voting did not open until late March, after parents had been informed of the results of that choice in principle to end the school as a single legal entity by joining a MAT. This, of course, is perhaps the biggest decision any governing body can take.

The appointment by this trust of non-parent governors has been much swifter. In the past month, four more governors have been appointed, either by “academy members” or by the governing body itself, government records show. The two most high-profile appointments have been David Laws, a Liberal Democrat former schools minister from the coalition years, and Ed Vainker, a co-founder of the free school Reach Academy Feltham.

What previous meeting minutes show about the process

-It is a key part of parents’ argument against this process that information has not been made public with regard to the decision-making. And, indeed, as far as I am aware full minutes have still not been released in relation to the meeting where the board opted in principle to go with ULT.

However, minutes of previous governing body meetings, leading up to that decision, have now been released. This disclosure* came in a freedom of information release to a parent, which has been seen by Education Uncovered.

The released minutes show:

-That discussions about joining a MAT had been “ongoing” since September 2021, after five new governors/trustees, including Farrell, had been appointed. All of these new governors had links to MATs. Their appointment predated the publication of the Notice to Improve, which had recommended the trust consider joining a MAT.

-At a meeting on Monday, December 13^th, the governing body was presented with a paper by Vanessa Ogden, a recently-appointed trustee who had been tasked with leading a working group on joining a multi-academy trust.

The minutes state that: “It was felt that communication should be managed, and that the confidentiality of the Governing Body was an important part of this.”

It is possible to wonder whether there was public interest in such “confidentiality” at the stage while discussions were at a formative stage – indeed this is a central question of the possible legal challenge – especially given that governing bodies are supposed to follow the Nolan principles, one of which is openness.

-At a meeting on Monday, January 17^th, it was stated that the working group had met the previous Friday, January 14^th. This meeting had considered a list of potential MATs to join, which had been provided by the Regional Schools Commissioner.

The minutes state that these unnamed trusts had been “assessed (in principle)” against criteria as set out by the governing body. As far as I am aware, even the criteria by which these MATs were assessed have not been provided to parents.

The working group had then developed a “longlist of six potential options,” including those on the RSC’s list. These appear to have been listed in the minutes, though the names are blacked out so cannot be read.

-At a meeting on Monday, 7^th February, some more detail was provided on the process. A paper had been presented by the working group, where it was “noted that five criteria had been added to the original set approved by the governing body – all were related to the infrastructure available from a MAT”.

It was then stated that the group had considered, within its process, the preference of the local authority – which was for the school to establish a MAT in conjunction with [the nearby] Kensington Aldridge Academy. After an initial meeting, the group had reduced the longlist to six – as had been discussed at the governing body meeting on 17 January 2022. The RSC’s office had been content with the list of six, and the Clerk had produced a ‘pen portrait’ of each.”

Again, it does not appear that the six have been named, and I am not aware of these pen portraits having been released.

The minutes offer some detail as to why the local partnership with the Kensington Aldridge Academy (KAA) had been rejected.

They state: “There was no MAT in place at this point, and even once such were formed it would not be able to provide the firm and established foundations of governance and leadership that are required. This option had been the subject of intense lobbying from different parties over a number of months, so it was important to be clear that the governing body had considered this at length.”

The minutes then add, in a statement which seems bound to raise eyebrows with the parent group, and also with local councillors who are opposed to the school transferring to ULT, and with the parent election not having happened by the time the decision was taken: “This [the decision on KAA] notwithstanding the governing body reaffirmed its commitment to local voice in any decision that was reached.”

At this stage, the minutes suggest there were two “shortlisted options”, but again there has been no detail on which MAT, other than ULT, was in that position.

The minutes add: “It was recognised that there were strong views on the merits and demerits of joining a Multi Academy Trust, as well as in favour or against individual options, but it was important that any decision was taken as a collective body [of governors].

“Furthermore, it was recognised that a number of stakeholders would express opposition to joining a MAT, in principle, regardless of which partner was chosen – if indeed that was what the governing body concluded. In such circumstances, it was important that the governing body was clear on the rationale for any decision reached. It was also important that stakeholders understood what could be gained from joining a MAT as well as reassured on what they perceived might be lost.

“It was also noted that there was a need to move at pace, to ensure that any decision could be communicated to all stakeholders in a reasonable timescale. It was felt that since the discussions had been ongoing following new governors joining in September 2021, the school needed a guarantee of stability in the medium and long term; six months is a significant period of time for there to be uncertainty.”

The minutes include mention of an unnamed “DfE adviser,” who had been present at the meeting, and who “had expressed her thanks to the working group, and to the governing body, for the way in which they had approached this serious matter”.

The minutes add: “Whilst not wishing to encourage undue haste, it was agreed that it was important for all concerned to settle the matter as quickly as it was possible to do so. She also noted that whilst stakeholders should be engaged with, it was a decision for the governing body to reach.”

Again, the legal letter argues that it was illegal for a “decision” already to have been taken by the governing body, prior to consultation with “stakeholders”.

These February minutes state that the working group would return to the governing body with a recommendation “as soon as possible”. Parents became aware of the in-principle decision just over a month afterwards.

The legal letter sent to the governors seeks the disclosure of alternative options which were considered by the governing body, including through the release of papers of the working group.

Last month, I put a series of questions to Holland Park’s governing body, including on what date the decision to enter into due diligence with ULT had been taken, and which directors were present at the meeting when the decision was taken, and putting it to the trust that it looked as if it had not been constituted in line with its articles of association when the decision was taken.

The school got back to say, on April 2^nd, that the board had been “quorate” when the decision to identify United Learning as preferred MAT provided had been taken, though without providing a date.

It added: “It is important to state that the Board has not yet made any formal recommendation to the [Regional Schools Commissioner] that the school should join United Learning. We are due to start a stakeholder engagement process shortly on this. Elections to vote in new parent governors are underway and will be completed shortly.”

*It is the HPSPC’s contention that the information should have been released as part of the consultation process itself.