Author: Standards-Not-Tiers
Schools Reorganisation Public Meeting: Cowes Yacht Haven 10-07-08
Tuesday, 15th July, 2008 at 3:08 pm, Isle of Wight
Last Thursday, representatives from Standards Not Tiers attended the schools reorganisation public meeting at Cowes Yacht Haven. SNT have published a report of the meeting on their Web site and we have their permission to reproduce extracts on VentnorBlog to share with our readers. Ed
Introduction
The meeting was poorly attended. There were only 12 attendees. We were five minutes late and apparently Danny, the MC, had been told to close the meeting early on account of the low numbers and the expectation of fewer questions.
I didn’t know that this had been planned and when they eventually tried to close the meeting, despite there clearly being more questions to be asked, they said that the meeting could continue but informally only.
As that would have meant it being off the tape I did not agree and insisted that they restart the tape. Danny was most unhappy and although others that I asked afterwards thought he was just rather irritated, I thought he seemed aggressive. He actually told me that I had asked more than my fair share of questions already.
… In our opinion the informal consultation was clearly designed to frighten and sap everyone’s strength and the formal consultation has become a push over with hardly anyone engaging because they think the decision has already been made, which it has not.
This was likened to an artillery barrage prior to the infantry going in to surgically eradicate the remaining enemy troops left battered and wounded by the initial bombardment.
I’d describe the meeting as edgy but at the same time the officers had answers, albeit not very good ones, but answers nonetheless, to most of the questions and anything they couldn’t answer was deemed a matter for the politicians and needed to be put to the formal consultation formally…to which I said that I thought that the questions and the answers given at a formal meeting like this one, were supposed to form part of the formal consultation formally anyway, which was why it was all being recorded. Carrying on the meeting “informally” seemed to me to be a complete waste of time.
We did not notice any press or media presence at the meeting. Maybe they, like many members of the public have decided that such meeting are not worthy of their time.
….
Single Transfer and Size of the new Secondary Schools
Keith Simmonds stated the “fact” that single transfer will be more productive than multiple transfers. I was forced to interject and inform him that this was not a fact and that there was no research to show this to be the case.
He conceded that this was true but said that there was always an opposing view to any assertion.
Another attendee asked whether single transfer would not create far more traumatic transfers for eleven year olds as result of the large size of the proposed secondary schools as against the small size of some of our primaries.
She cited the example of a child at a new 1FE Sandown primary school, transferring to the massive 12FE Sandown High School. That child would be going from a year group of 30 to one of 360 overnight.
Mr Simmonds was not sympathetic saying that the new secondary schools would not be particularly big. He offered no answer except to explain that objections like that were a matter of policy and more a political point that should be raised as part of the formal consultation under the heading “objection to change”…I think that was what the lady concerned was trying to do! Keith Simmonds seemed to me to be very clear however…12FE is not big!
(SNT Comment: We did not really have the opportunity to counter this. We do however have a broad body of evidence to support the view that our secondary schools are already too big and making them bigger is likely to cause a decline in standards. We strongly believe that Island results are partly a consequence of the size of year groups at GCSE and in line with the results produced by other schools on the mainland (predominantly two tier) that have similar size year elevens. We know of at least one large urban authority that despite having many smaller secondary schools of 6FE or less, are looking at small successful secondary schools elsewhere for inspiration and guidance – so why aren’t we?)
…
And Finally…
There were many things that were deemed a matter for the politicians and we were told needed to be put to the formal consultation formally by formally writing to a formal part of the formal consultation but really something that could not be answered adequately at a formal public meeting that was about to close (run out of recording time / inconvenience officers / make the sound engineers late for their after gig party) and become informal (sigh of relief).
Amongst other things, some already mentioned, these were interesting:
Q: Parents with children starting in 2010 but no others in the system have not been consulted?
A: And…?
Statement by Mr Simmonds: Apparently the LA has a statutory responsibility to respond to parental demand for successful and popular schools by expanding them.
You can read the report in full over on the SNT Website.
Cartoon reproduced with permission by Island cartoonist, Rupert Besley. Check out his website, he’s got some brilliantly topical cartoons on there.
Email This Story To A Friend
July 15th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Standards, not Tiers are now well established in their opposition to the proposed restructuring. However, with all the thousands of words and documents produced I have forgotten what your alternatives are that would achieve sufficiently higher standards (exam results). It seems that next May you may be called upon to float these ideas as part of the election, but it would really help me now if you could elaborate. How?
July 15th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
I’d be quite happy to keep the same standards, given that they are currently rising, and the one thing that seems certain to derail them is the proposed reorganisation!
The fact that the meeting was closed early, with questions unanswered, raises suspicions about statutory compliance. These meetings are formally recorded and were publicised as lasting for two hours. If they are cut short, they do not satisfy the legal consultative requirements.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
Does anyone know if published documents that contain errors (be they ‘typos’ or not) satisfy the legal consultative requirements? Or should they be withdrawn, corrected and the formal consultation be restarted?
Additionally, Chris adds in the final section of the report of the Cowes meeting “There were many things that were deemed a matter for the politicians and we were told needed to be put to the formal consultation formally by formally WRITING to a formal part of the formal consultation”
I was led to understand that these meetings formed an actual part of the formal consultation. In my eyes they seem to be regarded more as ‘we tell you - you ask questions’ sessions by the Council employees fronting them rather than what they are described as. As far as I can tell they are taking nothing back from these meetings. It’s no wonder virtually no one is bothering to attend.
Furthermore isn’t the insistence of everything being put to them in writing being discriminatory against the visually impaired or those with special needs who cannot write. Have they not heard of the The Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) 1995?
July 16th, 2008 at 6:39 am
@ Greenboy.
‘Sufficiently higher standards’? The architect of the proposed restructuring himself is honest enough to say that these are not guaranteed.
I think you’ll find that SNT believe that we have not by any means exhausted what is possible WITHIN the current structure, that we have failed correctly to identify and address the problem areas and that much more can be done, at considerably less expense, with a good deal less disruption to a whole generation of school children (mine included!)
Since I saw the figure of £200m I can’t get out of my head what a huge sum of money that is to spend on a ’suck it and see’ policy that may very well prove unpalatable.
July 16th, 2008 at 8:46 am
“£200m”
All to save £7m, apparently!
Funny how that sort of money is only available to do major demolition jobs, but never for incremental stuff, like improving what we’ve got…
July 16th, 2008 at 9:08 am
The competition to run the new secondary schools begins in November this year. At the Carisbrooke meeting last week (9th) we were invited by officers to see this as an opportunity to get involved. But parents raised concerns about how realistic it is to get a willing and able group together and form a proposal from scratch with so little time (summer holidays in the middle) and zero experience. I have real doubts about this approach. Are parents really itching to oversee the running of schools? Most of us are busy people with (by definition) school-age families, and most of us already have jobs.
Some schools lower down the system will become new schools without having to have a competition: a waiver will be applied for and they will continue to be overseen by the local authority. Officers explained that the waiver is only applicable to schools of a religious nature (hence Christ the King can be formed without having a competition), or to schools that demonstrate high standards. Our high schools’ achievements are “not good enough” to qualify for waivers.
I asked the officers if Carisbrooke might have a case for waiver if it puts on another spurt this year and overtakes the national figures (last year it was less than one per cent behind at GCSE 5+ A*-C including English & Maths - 45.2%, and ahead on average point score). Chris V-P said no, council had already decided, and even if it overtook the national figure it would still not be good enough.
What is considered “good”? I asked.
68 per cent he said.
How many non-selective comprehensives in England achieve 68% or above at that measure? I asked.
He said he didn’t know. And said that in any case, we don’t have “a spread” of results. Most places have a spread.
Since the meeting I’ve checked the 2007 LA league tables and worked out the answer to my own question. Just 3 per cent of non-selective comprehensives achieve 68 per cent or more at 5+ GCSE A*-C including English and Maths.
How our schools would miraculously leap to attain a figure that the rest of the country is struggling with through this reorganisation I do not know! Is the LA assuming that the faith school will deliver the 68%+ and the rest of the schools will supply the “spread” of figures so that Isle of Wight statistics conform with other areas? I’m worried that our schools (which have in the past few years made rapid progress) are being set up to fail.
(I originally posted this comment on saveiowschools.co.uk but am copying it here as it’s relevant to this thread.)
July 16th, 2008 at 9:41 am
“Is the LA assuming that the faith school will deliver the 68%+..?”
Perhaps it’s to be a ‘leap of faith’ school.
This does seem to confirm that the reforms are ploughing on, regardless of Pugh’s attempts to make it an election issue. If he wants a democratic mandate (and to be re-elected!) this process has to stop. If it doesn’t, then Pugh’s PR is just a hollow sham.
July 16th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Ploughing on? Yes, they are. Any notion that the process has been “shelved” till the local elections is not right.
The Conservatives’ statement (June 23) said: “Preparations for the two-tier change will continue apace over the next 10 months, with the current formal consultation concluding in September 2008, before statutory notices are published in the spring of 2009. With detailed preparations completed, the Conservatives will seek re-election with a pledge to implement the final proposals if they are returned with a majority of seats – irrespective of whether the elections take place in May or June.”
Representations re the formal consultation need to be made between NOW and September 26.
July 16th, 2008 at 10:23 am
Apologies about this but I am feeling a bit thick and not sure I fully understand what is going on, so any help would be appreciated.
1. If a new school is formed then there has to be competition for running the school.
2. Except if a waiver has been applied.
3. The council will apply for a waiver for the primary schools and faith school.
4. The primary schools are currently doing well.
5. The council will not apply or can’t apply for a waiver for any high schools (with exception for the faith school).
6. The high schools are not doing so well (perceived anyway, although they seem to be improving).
7. The council will not be in competition for the high schools. (Why?)
8. The future situation then is the LA controls the primary and faith secondary school.
9. The results of the schools the LA controls will look fantastic.
10. The secondary schools (except the faith school) were initially improving before the reorganisation.
11. New companies / parent groups take over, initially the resulting disruption may produce a dip in results.
12. The conclusion therefore is that the LA schools and in particular faith school are being fantastically managed.
Didn’t they do well!!!
What happens if there aren’t any groups to take over the secondary schools?
Apologies for having to spell this out so that I can understand it, but if the problem seems to be in the high schools, then is this approach not just a handy way to ‘wash their hands’ of the problems?
Please let me know where my interpretation of this is incorrect so that I can understand how this links to improving standards.
It will certainly improve the LA education position for any targets that have to be met.
But surely any council would not risk children’s education for the sake of meeting targets? Would they?? This near to an election?
July 16th, 2008 at 11:12 am
I realise that the consultations have to proceed, and have no problem with that (although they don’t seem to be recording the public ones properly). The sticking point, IMO, is the definition of ‘preparations’, which are fine if they are to help make a case for their position (Heaven knows, they need one), but not OK if they are spending serious money or making structural changes that will be hard to reverse.
Is it any wonder that the competition to run the High Schools has met with a wave of apathy?
July 16th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
9 “7. The council will not be in competition for the high schools. (Why?)”
Something in me says that if GCSE results do not improve the Council will be free of blame.
July 16th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Although doubtless they will take the credit if they ever do..