Around and about, particularly around the school gates, I have heard plenty of speculation and a few wild rumours about the supposed (mis)fortunes of certain schools in the Rother Valley. I don't think that this kind of talk has been very helpful because it is often adding fuel to the fire, but it is not unnatural and can only be expected when parents and staff are unsure about their children's future in schools.
Having said that, some members of the NAME campaign think we must to pass on further information which has reached our ears. WSCC has been forced to concede that their plans for the Rother Valley secondary education means completely shutting down MGS and the two intermediates in order to have an academy built. This you now know. What you may not know (though you may have guessed) is that this set to happen on the MIS site, according to our sources.
In order to protect the anonymity of those who have passed this news on, NAME respectfully offers this onto the community as 'informed speculation'. We can't guarantee that this will be outlined by the Local Authority in print in the next round of "consultations", but we believe it will be. We know that not everybody who has known about this development has been happy to "sit on" it as instructed, and we share that unease, which is why we are telling you.
We believe that apart from the obvious heartbreak that it brings to past and present pupils, parents and staff, the MIS-siting has far reaching implications for the community at large. If county could push this through, Midhurst loses the historic school at the heart of the community. The logistic chaos caused to residents of Easbourne would be massive. Even if they built another road, this may ease some congestion for those commuters who never wished to travel via North Street, but three schools' worth of traffic getting into and out of Wheelbarrow Castle doesn't sound like a recipe for happy car journeys for those who do need to get around Midhurst or Easebourne. Crucially, we don't believe that the school site is big enough for as many pupils as county propose would go to the academy. The siting strand of the proposal, as we understand it, simply adds insult to injury: state-of-the-art or not, it's a raw deal for the students!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Battle lines drawn against academy
TEACHERS and parents have launched a campaign this week against plans to replace Midhurst Grammar School with a new academy school.
The campaign entitled NAME - No Academy in Midhurst or Easebourne - claims academies are bad for communities, bad for school staff and bad for parents and children.
NAME supporters want West Sussex County Council to hold out for public funding to build `the school we want where we want it'.
Campaign leader, former teacher and vicar of Heyshott Chris Boxley, said: "Following West Sussex County Council's disclosure of its plan to close three schools and open an academy in Midhurst or Easebourne, some concerned members of the community have formed a campaign group.
"NAME is gaining momentum daily and welcomes new members. It will engage in public meetings and produce literature, and it has established a website where the public can contribute their thoughts in a way that doesn't have to fit into the standard 'consultation' boxes."
This week Mr Boxley told the Observer he felt bound to take action out of loyalty to his former school, its pupils and staff and `out of a commitment to Midhurst to try to preserve some of its unique character which will be lost in a commercial development if the school is removed from the heart of the town'.
"West Sussex County Council claim the idea of an Academy for Midhust `emerged' during December," said Mr Boxley.
"Strange, then, that the minutes of the council's cabinet show they discussed the matter in May!"
Taking issue with WSCC cabinet member Mark Dunn's claim the academy route was the `only show in town', Mr Boxley said: "An academy is the only option to replace Midhurst Grammar, Herbert Shiner and the Intermediate if we demand closure of these schools now and their replacement in the next three years. This is not what the community wants."
If, on the other hand, the county council held. out for public funding, said Mr Boxley: "We can get the school we want, where we want it, using the detailed plans seen by governors at Midhurst Grammar School, creating a better school around Whip Hill, Lambert's Lane and including the existing brand-new sports centre.
"We say, why throw away a 336 year historical legacy for a slightly longer wait?"
Mr Boxley claimed academies were bad for communities because the sponsor had the majority of governors.
"The rules for academy governance are clear - even when the local authority is a co-sponsor, the private , sponsor must have an absolute majority of governors to maintain control of the school: this is undemocratic and unrepresentative."
He said academies were bad for staff because only existing staff were protected.
"New staff may be employed at a lower rate, eventually forcing downward pressure on wages and conditions for all workers in the academy."
And he claimed they were bad for parents and children because there was growing evidence they carried out 'back-door selection'.
"In the end," he claimed, "the school chooses its parents and children, not the other way around."
And the real choice for parents was not 'academy or nothing', he said.
"It is either buy into a privatised academy now or buy time for the community to debate its priorities and get the publicly-funded, publicly-run, publicly-accountable school its deserves."
The campaign website is http://namecampaign.bl.ogspot.com/
Midhurst & Petworth Observer
7th February 2008, page 1
Welfare of students must be the priority
So that is it: we are to get an Academy in Midhurst that will `change the face of education in the Rother Valley'.
What started as the regular five yearly questioning of the three-tier system that has served this area well for the past 30 years or so, is now being distorted by the offer of a large sum of money to build a sparkling new school.
What concerns me deeply is Mark Dunn, who has responsibility for children and young people's services in West Sussex, seems more concerned about attracting 'ambitious' middle-class parents into the area than he is about the communities that are served by the intermediate and secondary schools in the Rother Valley.
There is much talk in the press at the moment about the value of small schools in rural areas and how the closure of these schools can have a negative impact on the communities they serve.
It is not just primary education that is of value to community identity - evidence suggests secondary schools also have an important role to play in giving communities a sense of self.
Any plans for a change in the provision of secondary education in the Rother Valley must first and foremost seek to balance the needs of the communities with the requirements of providing a valuable educational experience for the young people.
Market forces may have been allowed to dominate educational provision since the 1988 Education Act, but it is still true education takes place within communities and the school is just one part of that process.
My concern is not for the children of the middle-classes who may be attracted into the area - they will always survive and prosper. It is for those young people who may, for a variety of reasons, not do well in their educational experience, and will remain trapped in the area with limited prospects.
It is in the interest of Midhurst and Petworth, and the villages in the area, that we have a meaningful debate about the nature of the educational experience that we want our young people to have before we get distracted by the candy on offer that may supply the means of provision.
The future of our young people, and our communities, is at stake.
Tony Sneller, North Street, Petworth
Lecturer in social policy and community development, universities of Brighton and Sussex
Former vice-chair of West Sussex School Organisation Committee
Former chair of governors, Herbert Shiner School
Associate governor, Midhurst Grammar School
Welfare of students must be the priority
So that is it: we are to get an Academy in Midhurst that will `change the face of education in the Rother Valley'.
What started as the regular five yearly questioning of the three-tier system that has served this area well for the past 30 years or so, is now being distorted by the offer of a large sum of money to build a sparkling new school.
What concerns me deeply is Mark Dunn, who has responsibility for children and young people's services in West Sussex, seems more concerned about attracting 'ambitious' middle-class parents into the area than he is about the communities that are served by the intermediate and secondary schools in the Rother Valley.
There is much talk in the press at the moment about the value of small schools in rural areas and how the closure of these schools can have a negative impact on the communities they serve.
It is not just primary education that is of value to community identity - evidence suggests secondary schools also have an important role to play in giving communities a sense of self.
Any plans for a change in the provision of secondary education in the Rother Valley must first and foremost seek to balance the needs of the communities with the requirements of providing a valuable educational experience for the young people.
Market forces may have been allowed to dominate educational provision since the 1988 Education Act, but it is still true education takes place within communities and the school is just one part of that process.
My concern is not for the children of the middle-classes who may be attracted into the area - they will always survive and prosper. It is for those young people who may, for a variety of reasons, not do well in their educational experience, and will remain trapped in the area with limited prospects.
It is in the interest of Midhurst and Petworth, and the villages in the area, that we have a meaningful debate about the nature of the educational experience that we want our young people to have before we get distracted by the candy on offer that may supply the means of provision.
The future of our young people, and our communities, is at stake.
Tony Sneller, North Street, Petworth
Lecturer in social policy and community development, universities of Brighton and Sussex
Former vice-chair of West Sussex School Organisation Committee
Former chair of governors, Herbert Shiner School
Associate governor, Midhurst Grammar School
County Council Leader Joins the Debate
IMPROVING educational opportunities for all our children and young people is a top priority for West Sussex County Council.
We have always been quick to take advantage of initiatives that enable us to raise standards and Improve school facilities.
For instance, we were able to build three secondary schools in Crawley using the PFI initiative and they have been a tremendous success.
The Academies programme provides the latest opportunity to do more to improve the prospects for children and to secure funding to invest in improving our schools' educational provision. We are moving forward with exciting plans for schools along the south coast as well as investigating options for Midhurst and the Rother Valley.
Academies offer a new direction with opportunities to draw on the skills and commitment of sponsors and other supporters. They aim to work with parents and the local community to deliver distinctive new approaches to delivering real improvements in opportunities and in education standards.
We are delighted to be partnering Woodard Schools as joint sponsor for new Academies along the south coast. We have secured provisional agreement for a capital funding allocation from the government worth £77m.
Woodards offer very successful educational experience from the independent sector and from their affiliated state schools and we know they can add their own special dimension to these new initiatives.
The county council is confident investment on this scale will not only provide our youngsters with the opportunity to help them achieve their full potential - the projects will deliver benefits for the community as a whole and help with regeneration along the south coast.
We will soon begin public consultation around the creation of these new schools. This process will give local communities an opportunity to hear about the ambitions for these exciting developments and in turn express their views.
I hope residents will reach out and seize this opportunity to raise the aspirations and attainments of our young people.
Henry Smith,
leader, West Sussex County Council
I welcome the announcement there is to be a new 'state-of-the-art' secondary school (Observer, January 31) for the Midhurst and Petworth area.
I deplore, however, the accompanying statement this is likely to be an Academy and is apparently the only means of funding such a new school.
Having known the school for some 40 years as former teacher, parent and governor, it is no surprise to me new school buildings have been judged to be necessary, indeed long overdue.
MGS has worked for years in farfrom-modern classrooms, and it reflects well on students and staff so much has been achieved despite this over a long period of time.
New buildings must inherently offer the chance to raise standards still further, as the local authority declares it wants: one need only think of the new sports hall to see one example of such potential.
Why, then, cannot such a desirable investment be funded the normal traditional way via the local authority?
Why do we have to accept all the disadvantages of an academy as the price of progress?
Why cannot we have `learning comparable with the best in the maintained sector' (Observer, January 31) and the means of achieving that in the maintained sector itself?
Everybody interested in. the wellbeing and success of education in the Midhurst area should be in no doubt of what is wrong with academies.
They are legally independent schools, with all that means for a publicly-funded education system; in effect it is privatisation. Academies are in hock to a sponsor, who may well have his/her own agenda significantly divergent from educational priorities.
I note we are told staff will transfer with existing conditions of service: the record of academies across the country would suggest this has not been maintained beyond the very short term, and a deterioration of staff conditions of service is not likely to aid rising standards.
We are told Academies mean rising standards: the historical truth of this should also be challenged, and certainly we should be very suspicious of any mantra that a new structure inherently means rising standards.
I note we are told Academies offer scope arising from not being bound by the national curriculum. If this is so desirable, why cannot all schools be freed from these constraints?
I urge all of those interested in the future success of education in the Midhurst area to examine the proposals very carefully and properly critically, to take part in forthcoming consultations, and to try to make them a truly democratic consultation.
John Newman,
Maplehurst Road, Chichester
With all the talk and publicity about what education in the Rother Valley will look like in the future, I ask everyone involved to beware of the sucker punch.
Make sure ALL the proposals are in place, deals signed and the money earmarked and in such a way as there can be no going back.
This must include full planning permissions, agreements on vehicular and pedestrian access to the site as these will take time to put into place.
Proposals to combine schools onto a single site will take time and money. West Sussex County Council keeps telling us it has no money to make significant changes, so how can this be done?
Well, how about this for a scenario? Just suppose plans are drawn up for the quick combining of two schools, with a longer-term plan to build a new school that will be available in a few years' time after the new one has been completed.
To make this possible, the two existing schools will have to `temporarily' combine on the site that is not going to he developed. The schools dutifully merge on one site.
Surprise, surprise, after the schools have combined on the less favourable site, negotiations for funding for the new development hit the buffers and there will be no money to complete the promised new building.
As the two schools now share the same site, surely it will be very simple to carry on! No cost, no new build and no new school, but the changes that were on the original agenda of combining two schools has been achieved.
The fact it has not happened as we planned is `not our fault' but a victim of changing circumstances and unforeseen challenges.
If the school is run as an Academy you have to remember it will be run not by West Sussex, but by a private company, albeit a not-for-profit company, so the LEA can wash its hands of any future problems.
Victim of the sucker punch - all pupils and parents in the Rother Valley for years to come.
Mike Beal
Kingsway, Selsey
For Your Information: The previous comments are actually taken from articles and letters from the Midhurst and Petworth Observer. Thank you to our anonymous sender.
Post a Comment