Author: simon
IW Council Writes To Government Over School Closures
Thursday, 31st January, 2008 at 3:53 pm, Isle of Wight
As you’ll be aware. there’s been some confusion on the Island as to who is asking for the changes to the school system.
The IW Council have been saying that it’s down to actions of the Government and the Government has recently been saying that it isn’t them.
The ones caught in the middle are the residents of the Island, in particular the children.
Here’s the latest episode. IW Council have written to Lord Adonis, Parliamentary Undersecretary of State for Schools and Learners. The letter in full is below.
Lord Adonis
Parliamentary Undersecretary of State for Schools and Learners
Department for Children, Schools and Families
Sanctuary Buildings
Great Smith Street
Westminster
London
SW1P 3BT
31 January 2008
Dear Lord Adonis
We write further to the letter we received, at your request, from DCSF on 18th January. The letter from Peter Clough – Deputy Director of the School Improvement Division – helpfully set out a shared analysis of the situation on the Isle of Wight.
As you are aware, we are currently undertaking an informal consultation on options for change to the Island’s education system, with three different models being put forward to the public for their views.
After receiving DCSF’s “Primary Strategy for Change” document on 6th December, which set out guidance for local authorities on developing, agreeing and implementing a strategic approach to capital investment in schools, we adjusted all of our options to ensure we would be likely to meet the qualifying criteria for the primary capital programme.
In particular, we took note of the guidance that said “strategies that fail to commit to addressing surplus capacity at local authority or individual school level will not be approved”, which is followed by the statement that you would expect to see overall surplus places to be reduced to less than 10% across the local authority area.
These options are now out for public consultation and we are heavily engaged in this process.
We were therefore surprised and dismayed at the comments made by the Schools Minister, Jim Knight MP, on BBC South Today last night. He said that there is “no justification” for our proposals – which he claimed were “widescale closures of rural schools” (which is clearly not the case). Mr Knight openly criticised the proposals we are consulting on, despite the fact that we have modelled all the options on the clear guidance as set out by your department.
We find Mr Knight’s comments both unhelpful and extremely injurious to the current open consultation we are undertaking. It is a shame that the minister did not have the opportunity to review our proposals as he would have seen that – particularly under 2 out of our 3 options we have put forward – we are proposing to retain and strengthen a significant number of rural schools, accessible to local communities across the Island. We are even proposing a completely new build rural school to serve a number of villages.
In a meeting in March 2007 with the then Leader of the Isle of Wight Council, Mr Knight stressed that school organisation was a matter for the local authority, and this was reiterated in Mr Clough’s letter last week. We have repeatedly made clear that we are making a decision locally, in the context of the national framework – as we are doing so by meeting your criteria to qualify for Primary Capital Programme funding.
Furthermore, Mr Knight indicated in March 2007 that he was unable to comment on our proposals at the time, as he may have to consider them, as the Schools Minister, at a later stage. This seems to be completely at odds with his comments yesterday, and raises serious concerns over whether Mr Knight may have reached a pre-determined view on proposals which may come before him in due course.
We fully appreciate the requirements of the 2006 Education Act which stipulate that there is a “presumption against rural school closures”, and we have taken this into account in our proposals and our consultation is looking at the issues around this.
However, we feel it is somewhat misleading of government ministers to suggest, as Mr Knight did yesterday, that there has been “no policy change” in relation to rural schools. The Primary Capital Programme – and the criteria it lays down – surely represents the most significant change of funding arrangements for primary school buildings in recent years. It would be helpful if the government clarified its position as it is of major significance to the future of education on the Island.
There are a number of other related points which we feel need clarifying, and as such we seek an urgent meeting with you and your officials.
We hope that you appreciate the seriousness of the concerns we have raised here, and our view that the comments made by Mr Knight have the potential to adversely impact on the effectiveness of our consultation period and our ability to reach the best decision in March 2008 for the future of Island education.
We are of course writing to Jim Knight providing him with full details of our proposals.
Yours sincerely
Councillor David Pugh
Leader of the Council
Joe Duckworth
Chief Executive
Education, From the Council, Island-wide, Politics
Email This Story To A Friend
January 31st, 2008 at 4:23 pm
I think it may come as a surprise to most of us to learn that the council is not engaged in a formal consultation with us on the options that they intend to ask the council to vote on in March.
The letter sent today, by the council to Lord Adonis, in response to the welcome statement made by Jim Knight yesterday, states that: “we are currently undertaking an informal consultation on options for change to the Island’s education system, with three different models being put forward to the public for their views”.
This means that they are not bound by the guidelines governing consultation and our views will not have to be taken into account at this stage - despite the fact that the council vote on the matter in March and the “consultation” is scheduled to end on the 22nd February. Haven’t we spent long enough in informal discussions?
The letter goes on to say: “We were therefore surprised and dismayed at the comments made by the Schools Minister, Jim Knight MP, on BBC South Today last night. He said that there is “no justification” for our proposals – which he claimed were “widescale closures of rural schools” (which is clearly not the case). Mr Knight openly criticised the proposals we are consulting on, despite the fact that we have modelled all the options on the clear guidance as set out by your department.”
Well we don’t agree - the guidance has not been followed and as far as surplus places in concerned no effort has been made to reduce surplus places - in fact between 2006 and 2007, 61 extra places were created in Island schools - despite a report published by officers in July 2006 - outlining action that needed to be taken to reduce these. As far as Pugh & Co are concerned, the only way to address surplus places is to close schools - We think that’s wrong - and so does the Minister Jim Knight!
January 31st, 2008 at 4:45 pm
I certainly didn’t think that this meant that “they are not bound by the guidelines governing consultation and our views will not have to be taken into account at this stage,” as you have said Chris.
I’ll put this to the council press office and see what they say.
January 31st, 2008 at 4:50 pm
If the Council’s proposals don’t involve “widespread closures of rural schools” which they say in the letter is “clearly not the case”, then we must indeed be in an Alice in Wonderland world. 12 of the 23 primary schools GUARANTEED to close under their proposals are classed as rural schools. 12 seems pretty widespread to people who haven’t lodged their brains somewhere the sun doesn’t shine !
January 31st, 2008 at 5:12 pm
May be I just missed something, but I am sure the Council said the consultation was about improving standards of education, but I can’t spot a mention of this in the letter. I wonder why?
January 31st, 2008 at 5:48 pm
I have just been told that it does actually say informal consultation in the “consulation document” - so where do we stand?
January 31st, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Hmmm, re-reading the back page of Which Way Forward (round in circles it seems), and it doesn’t say anything about how or whether feedback from public meetings is taken into account. BUT it does say they’ll be taking account of “focus groups”. Um, who is on these focus groups and how are they chosen? I will ask this question!
January 31st, 2008 at 6:20 pm
If this is informal consultation then, following a decision in March there has to be a period of formal consultation on one option.
January 31st, 2008 at 6:39 pm
This is GREAT NEWS!
Councils very rarely ask the Government for clarification in such a public way. It’s potentially embarrassing for one or the other, so a lot of energy goes into getting it right first.
I think the Council is to be congratulated on taking such a sensible move, despite the difficulties!
Dave Simon
TRANSITION ISLAND
http://www.aldermoor-farm.co.uk/TransitionIsland.htm
January 31st, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Well, if as the Tory council claim, impending closures are at the behest of the Labour Government, why doesn’t it just refuse to carry them out and let the Labour Government do it’s own dirty work? The council has been elected to run our services and if that involves a stand-off, so be it. Mind you, it could just be a local cost-cutting exercise ….
January 31st, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Would anyone care to correct the spelling mistake of “Govenment” in the header? One assumes the reasons for proposing change in education, is to improve it!!
February 1st, 2008 at 9:13 am
February 1st, 2008 at 10:35 am
There is not really “confusion” about Labour Government policy to close rural schools in the Tory heartlands. Our “friend” Gordon and his Ministers just realised that if they pushed the councils, that we the people voted in, to go ahead with their official guidance sent out in December to shut schools with empty desks, that with everything else that they have done over the last few months they are likely to get thrown out at the next election. They can offend some of the people some of the time and get away with it, but they can’t offend all of the people all of the time. Jim Knight for instance has only a small majority in Dorset and it would be easy to overthrow, so he had to say what he did - you can’t blame him for wanting to survive in power.
Just remember, those Oldies who have studied “Constitution”. an individual politician can say what he likes; it’s what Ministers decide collectively that will happen - and in this case no Minister has resigned so they are all acting as one whatever they might think as individuals.
If Gordon wants to close the rural schools how can the Isle of Wight Council stand up against him. It’s up to the “Beast” (as those in power call us) to do something. The “Beast” is sad and confused at the moment. It won’t take much for the “Beast” to get angry.
One has to assert one’s rights (or schools) or lose them.
The people of the Isle of Wight could follow the lead of Herefordshire and Shropshire who have got their school closures shelved. They showed us the way:- Turn up at County Hall Council Meetings with flags and banners in thousands - have a children’s crusade. Expose all the hypocrisy, inconsistencies and corruption you can find; demand public consultation meetings; organise your own if necessary; keep making a noise till the closure plans are shelved; keep it up till the next election if necessary. It’s time every Englishman followed Churchill’s advice - fight them in their corridors, offices and halls, fight them on the beaches, fight them in the hills. Don’t let this group of Ministers go down without a fight. The English Beast has had enough, it’s time to fight back.
February 1st, 2008 at 1:00 pm
May 24th, 2008 at 11:31 am
So, Totland Junior School (sorry, it was never Weston Community School to me) is to close. Who on earth came up with this nonsense? I was born in Totland in 1953 and went to the school from 1958 to 1964; all this was at a time when the village was a fraction of the size it is today. I cannot believe that Totland will no longer have it’s own primary school, and, to those who made this decision, guess what? Whilst you and the government play your pathetic game of blaming each other (and God forbid that a politician of any level should take responsibility for their actions)those of us who went to that school (and in some cases it is several generations of the same families that did so)we don’t care where the blame lies. We would just like to know how this decision was reached. Along with thousands of others, I had six superb years at the school and it gave me a wonderful start in life, and now it is to be closed down and no doubt demolished to make way for even more ugly flats. When one looks at the league tables of schools over the last few years, the primary schools on the Island have had by far the best record and now most of them are to go. Am I missing something here?