Redacted email shows financial “shortfall” facing school as it joined a multi-academy trust

A school’s governing body has backed down in a protracted freedom of information battle with local people, finally releasing the full contents of an email which appears to suggest it faced a financial “shortfall” as a result of joining an academy chain.

Governors at Ghost Hill infant and nursery school, in Taverham, Norfolk, had blocked the release of full details of the email. This had been sent from a senior figure within the Sapientia Education Trust, which was lined up to take over the school, to its headteacher.

The governors initially said full release of the information was exempt from freedom of information legislation, because to put all the details in the public domain would “prejudice the commercial interests” of the Sapientia Trust.

However, parent Tom Mitchell, acting on behalf of a group of other parents and local people, went to the Information Commissioner’s office (ICO) to challenge the decision, arguing that detail on the implications for public funds should be in the public domain.

The ICO contacted the school and, on August 6^th, then wrote to Mitchell to inform him that governors had “reconsidered” their position, and would release the full email.

This shows that two mentions of the word “shortfall” in the email – seemingly generated as a result of joining the trust - had been redacted in the initial response.

Other redactions had also blocked release of the amount the trust would charge the school in central fees; a mention of the possibility of this being reduced; and discussions of easing the financial burden of academisation by delaying the conversion. The FOI victory came too late to stop the school becoming an academy under Sapientia, however. 

The detail

Ghost Hill was subject to a protracted controversy with parents from last year over its planned transfer to Sapientia, a trust set up by an Ofsted-outstanding secondary school, Wymondham College, which now runs 11 academies. “Sapientia” is Latin for “wisdom”.

Last December, five people including Mitchell wrote to Ghost Hill’s chair of governors, Robert Moore, asking under freedom of information for detailed disclosures including an email sent three months earlier from Bob Moorhouse, Sapientia’s chief operating officer, to Donna Garratt, the headteacher at the time. It had been marked “Ghost Hill-CONFIDENTIAL”.

In a letter to Mitchell in January, headed “sent on behalf of the full governing body”, Moore wrote that only a redacted version of the email would be provided.

“The section(s) redacted have been done to comply with the section 43 [of the Freedom of Information Act] exemption that disclosure of the full document is likely to prejudice the commercial interests of another person, in this case, Sapientia Education Trust.

“Having considered the matter, we feel that the public interest is likely to be satisfied by withholding the [full publication of the] document at this time as it could be prejudicial to the current negotiations that the Trust is undertaking.”

Mitchell challenged that decision with the school, but there was no change. However, after he wrote to the ICO – and presumably after it contacted the governing body – he received an email from an ICO case officer on August 6^th.

This stated: “The school has been in touch with me to say that, having reconsidered the matter, it’s prepared to release the information in question to you.”

What the redacted information says

Comparing the redacted version of the email to the full version which has finally been released is very interesting.

The email was sent by Moorhouse, on September 19^th 2017, to discuss the school’s “tight” budget situation and what the full document now shows appears to be prospective “shortfall” in Ghost Hill’s budget, seemingly caused by the central charge to be levied on the school by the trust.

The first bit of text which was initially redacted says:

“In broad terms, the MAT charges the schools in the Trust 4.25% of GAG [general annual grant] (in your case this would be 4.25% of your LA income which is £711,919). However, 4.25% of your GAG would be £30,256.”

The email, in text visible in both the unredacted and redacted versions, then states elements of Ghost Hill’s budget which were at the time being paid to the local authority to services, which effectively would be paid for out of the MAT’s service charge.

Both versions then see information on how these areas of expenditure add up, to come to a total bill of £14,658. But the next bit of text, stating that this would leave “a shortfall of £15,598” – ie the payments for these LA services come to less than the MAT’s prospective overall service charge - is blacked out in the redacted version and only visible in unredacted one.

That figure is the gap between the school’s saving for not paying for these services via the local authority and the service charge it would have to find if it went with the MAT. 

The email’s next paragraph sees previously redacted text stating that £2,500 of the £25,000 conversion grant that schools get as a one-off payment from the government to facilitate academisation could be used to part-fund the £15,598 “shortfall”.
But this would still leave £13,098, with the unredacted email revealing that Moorhouse had written “it is not possible to find this in your budget at this time”.

The redacted text also sees Moorhouse discussing the possibility of lowering the charge to three per cent of GAG, but then concluding that even making this change – which would have cut Ghost Hill’s bill to the trust by nearly £9,000 – would still leave it short by £4,199, “again a figure that would not be met within your current budget”.

The final bit of redacted text relates to the beneficial financial effect of delaying the school joining the trust until April 1^st, 2018, which did eventually happen.

Mitchell told Education Uncovered that the redactions meant that the school had been converted into an academy under the trust without the community having been told the full financial implications of doing so, which seemed to include academisation costing the school money in terms of day-to-day running costs.

He said: “The FOI request was very important as there should have been no need to hide what public money is spent on. Although it is now too late, it would have been vitally important to see if joining the MAT [multi-academy trust] was financially viable and sustainable. At a time when the whole MAT system seems to be falling apart it is important that these processes are as transparent as possible. There should never be anything to hide.”

Sapientia has been approached for comment, and this piece will be updated with any response if and when it comes.

Aside from issues of transparency, the case may heighten scrutiny over multi-academy service charges, and whether schools lose or gain in cash terms from being part of MATs, rather than paying for services as maintained schools via their local authorities.