We have put this response together on behalf of the North Tyneside Green Party. We have shared our thoughts about the consultation, our support for an extension and full review of the schools in North Tyneside, and other potential solutions which we think are still worth exploring. We have added some questions throughout which we feel should be considered as part of the consultation.
The consultation
With regard to the consultation, it has been several years of getting to this stage and it is only now that the council has chosen to release a consultation on this. Surely it would have been better to have a consultation in good faith, setting out options and considerations a few years ago. With that approach, people could have been taken on the journey rather than the current approach taken by the council, which has caused much upset and anxiety within the community.
In terms of the information, we appreciate the documentation that has been released and that the council has updated FAQs raised. This has been helpful to understand what has happened. However much of this has been added very late in the consultation, giving little scope to explore it further, and, overall, we reject the claim of transparency made about this consultation. The documents are buried deep in an relatively unnavigable website and we believe that this does not mean the public have been kept adequately informed.
Even if you find the documents, they only mention that the financial situation is a problem and not longer term viable, and it looks like there has only been headline information published rather than the full options appraisal. Next to each option it states that the option is ‘not financially viable’ or ‘because agreement could not be reached’ but we think it is important to share this full analysis to better understand the impact of each option and scrutinise. There also does not seem to have been analysis done to properly consider the trade-offs of letting Monkseaton close- closing the school does not reduce costs to zero and as far as we can see, there has been no figures presented for what happens next. In addition, there is acknowledgement that the Murton development may well make the school needed in the future but that the school will rack up too much debt in the meantime. However, what happens in 10-15 years time if they need to increase capacity, and how much might that cost?
In particular we think the decision to why ‘agreement could not be reached’ should be in the public domain in the following alternatives:
- Monkseaton High School to retain Years 9,10,11 and become the sixth form venue for the Whitley Bay, Monkseaton and North Shields area
- To co-locate with Monkseaton Middle School
- To bring Monkseaton High School and Whitley Bay High School together under one governing body
We recognise that school governors have the right to decide on how their school is to be developed, but in this case we are talking about a change which will impact a much wider community – the whole of the Whitley Bay community in fact, which is around 25% of the borough. Surely school governors can be encouraged to consider the future of their school in this context?
A full comprehensive review of schools provision in North Tyneside
In this light, and on a wider aspect, we believe that there needs to be a full review of the schools in the borough. Monkseaton should not be taken in isolation and a holistic and joined up approach as possible should be taken. This should look at the forecasts over a longer period of time with 10 years as minimum and plan this far ahead. The borough has a well established tradition of having both two and three tier systems which has wide support from parents and wherever possible this should be maintained. This should also look at reviewing catchments- something which the council has been very keen to dismiss.
One detail which we believe needs to be interrogated further is the relationship to Whitley Bay High School. Whitley Bay High School is one of the biggest schools in the borough, and was just rebuilt at great expense. However, this was taking place whilst a perfectly viable school was sitting largely empty and the forecast numbers were looking perilous. In the Capacity document, it says that “The total PAN should not be set higher by the Governing Body than the net total School Capacity”, yet Whitley Bay High seems to be overcapacity and still seeking more pupils than any other school in the borough. We are unsure about the reasoning for this but it seems odd that one school is pushing its capacity whilst a neighbouring school is struggling. Surely there was ample scope to review both of the schools capacity during the rebuild if overall capacity adjustments were needed. Did they deliberately keep this quiet until the work was done?
It is also very disappointing that Whitley Bay and Monkseaton couldn’t reach an agreement, especially given that they are run by the same trust, which also runs all of the other middle schools in the borough and most of the first schools. We are concerned that the decisions behind this are not being fully disclosed. The Green Party has always supported schools being maintained under direct local authority control for this very reason and so that joined thinking across schools can take place.
Impact on other schools
There will inevitably be an impact on all of the other schools in the borough, including feeder schools into middle schools, but also to other middle and secondary schools. The Capacity and admission document published on the consultation shows that Whitley Bay High is right now over capacity. There is little to no prospect that the school can take in everyone from the 3-tier system any time in the near future which means that pupils will either leave in year 7 to start a secondary school, with knock-on effects on the viability of other middle schools, or pupils will join 2-tier secondaries in year 9, which is disruptive or them and existing pupils at those schools. The decision to close to Monkseaton could therefore undermine other middle schools and cause unwanted disruption in secondary schools, and why the decision should only be taken as part of a full review.
Other potential solutions worth exploring
What is happening with the sixth form provision agreed for John Spence? Would it not be possible to use Monkseaton as an expanded sixth form and take on pupils from John Spence and Marden (as outlined in one of your options above), rather than opening a new 6th form there? It is confusing to see this option being rejected on the basis it may draw students away from other schools, while the council is actively pushing John Spence to do the same. We would like to see further consideration given to this, potentially saving the borough on building costs for the new sixth form and making best use of current assets. It is 10 mins walk from John Spence and Marden and the numbers should be calculated for this, but could be enough to fill a few hundred each year. Secondary age pupils would have to be spread out to existing secondary schools, with investment spent on enhancing the offers of the secondary school offers receiving the Y9-Y11.
We note that consideration has been given to bringing Monkseaton High School into the 2 tier system but what about extending the 3 tier system to include parts of John Spence’s catchment and the children who will be living in the Murton Fields development, by for example locating the new primary school to be built there in the current MHS building?
The National Education Union (NEU) have previously made good points about class sizes- can the council not be innovative and bring in smaller class sizes and keep schools open? There are many benefits for this and with concerns about the impact on the wellbeing of the pupils with this uncertainty and disruption, it could be a way of ensuring they have the additional support in the short term.
What about adding on specialist provision in the school and making it a space where children with SEND from across the borough can go? There are many parents who have had to make difficult decisions to take SEND children out of mainstream schools because of the lack of support and is there a gap in provision that could be filled at Monkseaton. Parents who currently send their special needs children to Monkseaton High School clearly value the approach and environment there. Could MHS not become a centre for these children in the borough? Or could the spaces that are not filled currently be filled by additional vocational training?
Finally, is there no possibility to look at what other activities could be co-located there? Could parts of the school be occupied by community groups, charities, workshops etc. and pay rent to the school to generate additional income?
Conclusion
We are very concerned that this consultation is not expecting credible suggestions and just trying to tick boxes and manage the process of getting this done. We note that parents have until the 31st October to change their application for Y9 pupils into Monkseaton, starting in September 2025, and that this is a day after the consultation closes. Understandably, with this uncertainty, many parents will want to switch and anecdotally, we have heard many are doing this. Surely this destroys all hope of exploring alternatives, effectively reducing demand even further, and further undermining the supposed aim of the consultation to explore options.
The same concern applies to the teachers and support staff for the school. They will be in the same situation as the parents and with so much uncertainty, it will be understandable if they apply elsewhere and many leave this year. Will the school even have enough teachers left to teach in the final year? Again, this effectively means school being real down.
Caught in the middle of all of this is the young children themselves. They have experienced Covid and now have this to deal with. We are most concerned about their wellbeing and feel that they must be given additional support and counselling through this. Also, we would be keen to understand what can be done to take this disruption into account when assessing the children for GCSEs and believe that dispensation should be given to them.
Calls for an extension
Many parents have called for an extension for a year and we support this. It would provide security for current Y9 students and time for alternatives to be explored in more detail. This is estimated to increase the deficit by £1 million but it is difficult to estimate the costs that this would have on disruption for current students. Those who have just joined Y9 should be able to see out until Y11 and complete GCSEs there. Link: Parent calls for 12-month extension on potential closing date for troubled high school.
Ultimately, we believe that the council should have brought in people at a much earlier stage. Often the community will be able to come up with creative solutions that the council and the board of governors may not have thought about. We have mentioned some above – now let’s have a new timetable from NTC to set out how this more thorough public consultation can take place.