Author: simon
Council Statement & Why It Doesn’t Answer The Question
Wednesday, 12th March, 2008 at 4:09 pm, Isle of Wight
Hold the press!
The long-awaited statement is in from the council on the question we raised with them. There’s a considerable ‘but’ at the end.
It is as follows …
IW Council Director of Children’s Services Steve Beynon said: “Whereas previously an unconditional sum of money has been available under the general capital programme there has been a change in the way that is now allocated. In the past, we have been able to access money to spend according to a local needs analysis. However, now we have to generate a strategic plan for primary education in order to access several million pounds over the next 3 years. The automatic allocation for 2008/9 is £3m, some £7m less than what has been the recent average. Without a strategic plan we will not be able to automatically access further funding until such a plan is approved by the Department for Children, Schools and Families. There has therefore been a clear reduction in the amount of money that automatically falls to us.”
Yes … we’ve read it through 4-5 times now and can’t see the answer to our question either.
Quite why this has taken from Friday lunchtime to get to us, is frankly beyond us.
We popped an email straight back to them
Thanks for the statement. It doesn’t answer our question. Can you let us know when we can expect to receive one that does?
We’ll let you know when we hear back.
Email This Story To A Friend
March 12th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
You’re right - that doesn’t answer anything, and you would hope that the Council had a strategic plan for Island children’s primary school education in place beforehand anyway.
March 30th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Hi,
Did you ever get an answer to this question? It seems that it would be very useful for anyone who wants to complain to the Local Government Ombudsman.
James
March 30th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
There seem to me to be 5 points at issue:
1. The ever changing matrix;
2. The sudden production of a 5th option;
3. The changes in the explanation of how the questionnaire would be interpreted;
4. The mis-interpretation of the surplus place return and lack of migration figures in the forecast supplied with it;
5. The lack of correct advice on capital funding for schools.