Rudolf Steiner bosses say that school is 'highly likely' to remain open throughout 2018-19 - and blame falling student numbers of Ofsted reports and bad press
Bosses at Rudolf Steiner School say the school WILL be open when the next academic year starts '“ but that there are 'no guarantees' it will remain so.
Student numbers have fallen by almost a fifth at Rudolf Steiner School since the safeguarding saga began.
In March 2015 the Kings Langley School had 387 students.
But by February 2018 that had fallen to 334.
And the school expects that figure to have fallen to 315 when the next academic year begins in September.
280 is the minimum number for the school to be viable.
A school spokesman said: “We will be open in September 2018, and it is very highly likely that the school will be open for the whole school year.
“But you can’t guarantee anything in this life.”
The spokesman blamed the falling pupil numbers primarily on the repeated problems with Ofsted inspections, and with negative media coverage.
A series of inspections have criticised the school, culminating with the government threatening to close the school altogether. Another Ofsted inspection is expected during the summer term.
The school is currently appealing against that decision.
The school had employed prestigious legal firm Mishcon de Reya as part of its efforts to stay open, although it is believed that the school has now changed its legal representation.
According to the school spokesman, interim principal Tim Byford did not know how many legal firms the school has employed over the last five years.
> Also this week Rudolf Steiner School confirmed that it had appealed for parents to help raise the £750,000 it needs to stay open – but declined to say what the school’s deficit is. There was no deficit 12 months ago.
The school also declined to say whether the school is looking for other sources of revenue.
> Two interviews with the Gazette were cancelled by Rudolf Steiner School in the space of 10 days.
Interim principal Tim Byford was due to speak to the paper in time for last week’s edition but cancelled without notice. He later blamed it on a medical issue. The paper was then due to meet both Mr Byford and his successor on Tuesday (May 1), but blamed the cancellation on a scheduling conflict.