Appendix 1 Monkseaton Middle School: Stage 1 Pre-Publication Consultation Outcomes
Appendix 1 Monkseaton Middle School: Stage 1 Pre-Publication Consultation Outcomes
Cabinet agreed at its meeting on 22 September 2025 to authorise the commencement of an initial pre-publication consultation with schools, parents and other stakeholders in relation to the proposal to close Monkseaton Middle School and work with Governing Bodies of Valley Gardens, Wellfield and Marden Bridge Middle Schools (“the Middle Schools”) and Whitley Bay High School to amend their Published Admission Numbers to meet the needs of pupils within the catchment area.
Responses from stakeholders to the Pre-Publication Consultation were provided online via the following link:
https://haveyoursay.northtyneside.gov.uk/hub-page/education-review-2
All responses to this anonymous questionnaire were dealt with in accordance with the Authority’s privacy notice, which can be found here in the privacy statement.
https://www.northtyneside.gov.uk/data-protection-and-privacy/privacy-statements
The Authority reviewed all responses in detail.
1.1 Consultation Questions
The following questions were used to gather views from stakeholders.
|
Q1. Are you responding to the questions about the proposal to close Monkseaton Middle School as a:
|
|
Q2. Do you agree or disagree with the proposal to close Monkseaton Middle School?
|
|
Q3. Having read the proposal in the background documents and the options appraisal, do you have an alternative option to the close of Monkseaton Middle School?
|
| Q4. We would like to know what your suggestion is and how you think it could be achieved – please explain in the space below: |
| Q5. We are keen to understand how a proposal to close the school could affect you, your child or your family. Please use the space below. |
1.2 Consultation Responses
- 322 people participated and completed the survey.
- 502 people downloaded a document, with 723 visiting multiple project pages.
- Overall, 2,411 people were aware of the Monkseaton Middle consultation (visited the site more than once).
Please see Appendix 2 for full responses to the pre-consultation questions. These responses are as written by respondents to the pre-consultation questions, the only amendments made are to maintain confidentiality and remove any information that could identify any individuals when the documentation is published. The full unedited text has been made available to and considered by the decision maker.
Chart 1: Make-up of respondents (322 responses)
Chart 2: Do you agree or disagree with the proposal (322 responses)
Q.4 Suggested suitable alternatives
Question 4 asked people to suggest any alternatives they might have. However, many of the answers were more about their general views on the proposals. These views are reflected in the themes shown in the tables below.
Table 1: Q4. Suggested alternatives – Monkseaton Middle School (respondents could make multiple suggestions)
| Theme | Count |
|
Opposition to closure due to school’s overall impact on pupils, families and community / Don’t underestimate the positive impact the school has on community
|
126 |
|
Keep open due to Special Education Needs and Disabilities (SEND) provision and specialist role
|
112 |
| Look at alternative models (e.g. Two-tier / Federation) | 34 |
| Reduce PAN and adjust intake/keep PAN of 390 across all 4 schools | 32 |
| Criticism of council strategy | 27 |
|
Look at funding alternatives
|
23 |
| Phased closure to limit impact on pupils | 20 |
| Keep the building for alternatives uses (e.g. house special schools; NHS community service provision) | 15 |
| Future growth and housing development will create need for school places | 8 |
Q5. Further comments
At the end of the questionnaire, people were asked how the proposals might affect them, their children, or their families. The answers have been grouped into key themes, which give a general idea of what people said — these are shown in the tables below.
Table 8: Further comments on proposal to potentially close Monkseaton Middle School (respondents could make multiple suggestions)
| Theme | Count |
|
Closure would impact children with SEND
|
124 |
| Opposition to closure due to school’s overall impact on pupils, families and community | 110 |
| Better planning needed – preference to keep children in three-tier system | 50 |
| Concerns with transport and accessibility of having to move to new school | 38 |
| Look at alternative models (e.g. specialist in inclusion Hub / Federation) | 30 |
| Extend catchment area to increase numbers | 25 |
| Criticism of council strategy | 22 |
| Phased closure to limit impact on pupils | 20 |
| Parents should have choice over their children’s education | 16 |
| The school offers a positive experience to its pupils | 16 |
| Concerns around how closure would impact on the mental health of pupils, especially those more vulnerable | 11 |
| Concerns that disruption would have a negative impact on pupils | 9 |
1.3 Review of Main Themes
The tables below summarise and address the most common themes, and provides a response to any suggested alternatives.
Suggested alternatives
| Theme | Response |
| Don’t underestimate the positive impact the school has on community |
The Authority understands and appreciates that the school provides a high quality, mainstream provision including for those children with SEND and this has been carefully considered. The Authority’s SEND Support Service would work directly with children and young people with an Education Health and Care Plan which names Monkseaton Middle School, to ensure a smooth transition to another setting were the decision taken to close Monkseaton Middle School.
However, the declining birth rate and approved closure of Monkseaton High School means there is too much capacity in the three-tier system. Unfortunately, pupil numbers at Monkseaton Middle School are declining and the school is only currently 60% full. This means the financial viability of the school is at risk. The numbers on roll (NOR) as of January 2025 were 227 with the PAN being 384, meaning that there are 41% surplus places.
|
|
Keep open due to SEND provision and specialist role / proposal from school |
A potential viable alternative was presented during the consultation. Initial conversations have already taken place to explore its feasibility and additional time is required to explore it further. To enable this to happen it is recommended that the Authority does not formally publish proposals and commence statutory consultation on proposals to close Monkseaton Middle School at this time.
|
| Look at funding alternatives |
It is important to note how school funding works and the respective role of the school and the Authority. School funding is the responsibility of the DfE; either by direct funding agreements with Academy Sponsors or via local authorities to schools where budget management is the delegated responsibility of each governing body.
Since 2017, there has been a move towards a National Funding Formula (NFF) approach to determine how funding is allocated to schools. In North Tyneside, the NFF approach has been applied since 2021/22, and is agreed each year by the North Tyneside Schools Forum (a representative group of school leaders and governors) before being ratified by Cabinet. This means that the Authority neither directly funds nor determines how much money is allocated to schools.
|
| Criticism of council strategy |
Cabinet agreed at its meeting on 22 September 2025 to authorise the commencement of an initial pre-publication consultation with schools, parents and other stakeholders in relation to each of the four proposals. It is a statutory requirement for the Proposer (in this case the Authority,) to consult any parties it considers appropriate before publishing statutory proposals. The Pre-Publication Consultation ran from 2 October 2025 to 13 November 2025. The Stage 1 Pre-Publication Consultation was carried out in full accordance with DfE statutory guidance.
The Authority is conscious that while many staff and parents understand the reasons for the Pre-Publication Consultation, there is also understandably a great deal of emotion connected to any change within a school and its place in the community. Throughout the process the Authority has sought to respond to queries and concerns with transparency, for example through the survey, responding to resident enquiries and Freedom of Information requests and uploading documentation and FAQs to the Engagement Hub. In considering the matters raised during the course of the pre-publication consultation period, the Authority published additional information at various points and also updated the FAQs. Whenever an FAQ was updated this was made clear on the Have Your Say page to ensure it was obvious which ones were new or had been updated. Newsletters were sent out which informed those who had registered and/or already submitted a response that there had been some updated information and FAQs added to the Authority’s Have Your Say consultation page.
|
| Keep the building for alternatives uses (e.g. house special schools; NHS community service provision) | There are no plans currently for the Monkseaton Middle School site. Any decision around future use would require the agreement of the Secretary of State for Education. |
| Reduce PAN and adjust intake/keep PAN of 390 across all 4 schools |
This would not be a cost-effective structure taking into consideration staffing, management and premises costs for four school sites with a reduced pupil intake.
In the current financial climate facing schools this is not something the Authority could support financially.
|
| Future growth and housing development will create need for school places |
Housing delivery by private sector developers, especially on the Authority’s strategic housing sites at Murton Gap and Killingworth Moor, have experienced reduced build-out rates which are below the annual target identified in the Local plan 2017. This, together with delays in the expected submission of planning applications is delaying the anticipated increase in pupil numbers. Also, new homes do not always mean new children of education age. On average, each 100 homes create 32 pupils across all twelve-year groups. Current projections show that the total number of pupils new developments would bring remains lower than the current birth rate decline. In the period 2010 to 2024 there has been a net increase of 7,777 dwellings across the Borough, with an average build per year of 555 dwellings. This therefore suggests that despite that level of new homes, the decline in the birth rate and pupil population continues.
|
| Look at alternative models (e.g. Two-tier / Federation) |
One option previously explored was moving the three-tier system to a two-tier system of education. This was considered in a review of education provision in 2000 and was not considered appropriate. It was then considered again in the education review of 2013-15. Significant consultation was undertaken in October 2014 and the feedback from that was clear that the schools and local community were committed to the three-tier system. As a result, it was agreed that the Authority would work with the schools to “maintain and raise standards and tackle the collective financial challenge” and would “work with Headteachers and Governing Bodies across the Whitley Bay and Monkseaton group of schools to retain the three-tier system while managing places, raising standards and controlling costs.”
The option was considered again in discussions with schools in 2022/23 but again dismissed as the vast majority of school leaders and governors were clear that they and the community wanted to maintain the three-tier system.
In the Cabinet Report of September 2023, the Authority gave a firm commitment to the three-tier system in the Planning Area and to working together with the schools to ensure it is viable and sustainable. It was made clear that in order for this to be taken forward there needed to be a firm commitment from all of the schools in the Planning Area to protect the integrity of the current three-tier system and to continue to collaborate and work closely together to ensure educational and financial sustainability.
|
| Phased closure to limit impact on pupils | Simple roll out of existing years, with No admission to Y5 from September 2026 would mean that the last year group (projected to be 45 pupils in Y8) would finish school in July 2029. There would need to be an assessment of the cost of running a facility for the reducing number of pupils. |
Q5. Further comments
At the end of the questionnaire, people were asked how the proposals might affect them, their children, or their families. The answers have been grouped into key themes, which give a general idea of what people said — these are shown in the tables below.
Table 2: Further comments on proposal to potentially close Monkseaton Middle School
| Theme | Response |
| Closure would impact children with SEND |
We understand that change can be particularly challenging for children and young people with SEND, including those with SEN Support Plans and Education Health and Care Plans. School leaders, education services and support networks would work with children, young people and families to have in place the transitional support needed, which is thoughtful and inclusive for every child. Support may include:
|
| Better planning needed – preference to keep children in three-tier system |
The Authority is committed to ensuring that there is a sustainable, sufficient, and high-quality educational system in the planning area and has worked closely in partnership with the schools over many years to address the significant challenges faced.
The Authority remains committed to the three-tier system but recognises that changes are necessary to ensure the long-term sustainability of schools. Pupil numbers moving through First and Middle Schools need to align with available places in Whitley Bay High School. This alignment has become more pressing due to a declining birth rate, which means fewer pupils are entering First Schools. As a result, many schools are operating below capacity, which is not financially or educationally sustainable.
|
| Concerns with transport and accessibility of having to move to new school |
Should the proposed school closure or an alternative solution progress, and this affects childrens’ transport arrangements, we would work with those students affected to understand their home to school travel requirements.
Assistance with travel may be available in specific circumstances and each child’s circumstances would be considered individually. The Authority’s home to school transport policy is available here.
|
| Parents should have choice over their children’s education | Parents may choose to apply for a school place in an alternative school at any time, which they can do via the in-year transfer process. |
| The school offers a positive experience to its pupils |
The Authority understands and appreciates that the school provides a high quality, mainstream provision including for those children with SEND and this has been carefully considered. However, the declining birth rate and approved closure of Monkseaton High School means there is too much capacity in the three-tier system. Unfortunately, pupil numbers at Monkseaton Middle School are declining and the school is only currently 59% full. This means the financial viability of the school is at risk. The numbers on roll (NOR) as of January 2025 were 227 with the PAN being 384, meaning that there are 41% surplus places.
|
| Concerns around how closure would impact on the mental health of pupils, especially those more vulnerable |
The Authority recognises that a consultation of this nature will be a concern for local communities however the current educational and financial position is not sustainable. The Authority aims to have a system of education that brings about the highest possible standards of education for all children and doing nothing will not achieve this in the rapidly changing educational landscape. The Authority understands the impact the consultation may have on those affected. Our Connect Mental Health Team works directly with schools and can provide additional support to pupils, colleagues and parents.
|
| Concerns that disruption would have a negative impact on pupils |
School leaders, education services and support networks would work together to ensure transitions are thoughtful and inclusive for every child. There would be additional support for children with SEND. SEND Support Service and Educational Psychology teams can work with a child’s current and future school to create a personalised transition plan. Visual timetables and sensory-friendly tours may be used to reduce anxiety. Staff who know pupils well would be involved in handover planning. Joint events and transition days help children meet new teachers and explore the new environment gradually. Schools would try to keep friendship groups together during the transition where possible.
|
| Look at alternative models (e.g. specialist in inclusion Hub / Federation) | See response above in Q4 |
| Opposition to closure due to school’s overall impact on pupils, families and community | See response above in Q4 |
| Extend catchment area to increase numbers |
Catchment areas are an Oversubscription tool within most schools’ Admissions Arrangements. Catchment areas do not prevent parental choice, and would not allow admissions to be refused in circumstances other than oversubscription. Where capacity exists, a place would be offered, irrespective of the catchment position. Therefore, changes to the catchments would not guarantee additional pupils, and therefore funding, coming to Monkseaton Middle School.
|
| Criticism of council strategy | See response above in Q4 |
| Phased closure to limit impact on pupils | See response above in Q4 |