National press coverage for C.L.A.R.E!

An article in the Telegraph newspaper has reported that the C.L.A.R.E campaign to set up a rural state school has been been thwarted by ministers and council officials.

It goes on to say that despite the Government's much trumpeted "parent power" agenda, plans put forward by families in Clare, Suffolk, to set up their own secondary school have been thrown out.

The group began a campaign in 2005, when Suffolk County Council announced it wanted to close the market town's middle school, as part of a reorganisation. The decision would mean sending children by bus to two senior schools outside the town, one with low results.

Parents launched a campaign to establish the Stour Valley Community College and won support for the project from local residents, MPs and borough councils....

Read the full story at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/secondaryeducation/3868356/Parents-school-plan-rejected.html

C.L.A.R.E response to Suffolk County Council

Dear Councillor Pembroke,

Following what we considered to be a very useful meeting we are very disappointed to receive the response we did from Rosalind Turner. We had anticipated the agreed list of issues that SCC wished us to address not a rejection letter repeating the same old issues most of which we regarded as dealt with at that meeting. However we should not be surprised because that has been the tactical line of the SOR Process from outset of the stakeholder groups. Pretend to listen then ignore everything that has been said. This is not an angry reaction, this fact that we can support with documentary evidence.

We were also extremely disappointed to receive enquires from EADT regarding the content of the letter three hours before Avril Clark e mailed the letter to C.LA.R.E. In view of how the letter was constructed we can only construe the leaking of the letter as a deliberate act to support a position of rejection of the proposal.

Little can be achieved at this late stage of responding to the letter in detail. However we would like to make a few observations for your consideration.

With regard to pupils numbers and sustainability; if the SOR Process adjusted the catchments areas as they once advocated, there are sufficient pupils to provide 160/170 form entries for three urban and one rural secondary school for next 3 to 5 years. This may not match local SOR aspirations but it does match Government criteria of a maximum of 800 pupils in a secondary school as being the most viable role number educationally and financially. With a role objective of 180 SCC are out of step with education policy.

The projection numbers we have used are those of actual pupils and young children who actually exist. Talk to any head of any school and they will show you the disparity between SOR numbers and the actual numbers that arrive in schools. Our estimates are based upon school numbers in the short and medium term and take into account future planned development for the next 20 years. To that extent our proposal is future proofed. The SCC SOR plan is based entirely around short term estimates 3 – 5 years and will not cater for the upsurge in demand from 2016 onwards which will bring entry up to 180 then.

We would urge you to independently look at Linton Community College, that started on 140 form entry and has expanded to 160 entry to accommodate out of catchment demand, most of which comes from Haverhill. The college is an outstanding and viable school which produces the pupil results. The Ofsted reports of the three urban schools in our area are measure of the management of the schools and delivery systems which are decidedly not matched with pupil results comparable with the benchmarks we have chosen.

SCC SOR planned development won’t be ready in time for the planned transfer in 2011 and certainly won’t be able to accommodate the upsurge in 2016 and beyond. To accommodate that demand will require the spending of £25m [SCC SOR estimate] on the urban schools but the SOR Process consider it logical to abandon a perfectly sited school which could accommodate most of that demand at a cost of between £4m and £7m?

With regard to finance the claims of under funding if four secondary schools are maintained this is a red herring used to direct funding to meet SOR Process aspirations. Funding and capital development formula money follows the pupil. If catchment areas are redrawn there is no need for significant development of the urban schools and the money would follow the pupils to the rural school. The Government also has additional funding to support new schools.

The SCC SOR process claim in their documentation that allocation of schools is based upon ‘parental preference’. The SOR consultation produced a 7:5% return in our area upon which they based the above preference. Our community consultation returned over 90% which stated that the preference was for a rural secondary school and we have 1500 letters of support to that effect. The results in our proposal we would suggest actually reflect parental and community preference as do the parental protests throughout the county.

We would also feel that the observations about the extent of our consultation made in the letter by Rosalind Turner were uncalled for. She is perfectly well aware that until we had the Ministers consent to publish which awaited SCC input we were unable to consult in the wider arena.

To ask C.LA.R.E. to co-operate in finding alternative community uses for the Clare Middle School is futile. The Middle School and the proposed Community College are the major foundation of the sustainability of that development. Children going to the urban secondary schools are going to play sports etc there. Statements such as this indicate to us just how out of touch the SOR Process is in terms of the impact upon the children, education and the community that the absence of a rural secondary school will have.

The galling element in this it is our children and the future of our community that will ultimately pay for the consequences of Option One and the by virtue of the Boundary Committee work it is probable that the authority imposing this plan will no longer be around to be held accountable for their actions.

The SOR Process aim has always been ‘to improve the perceptions of Haverhill’. As one officer put it “the educational and community issues arising from this are mere technicalities that can be managed”. This not a point of view that we can accept for either our children or our community.

Therefore we would make one last attempt to urge you and the members to set aside the SCC SOR advice and to consider the direction being advocated nationally not least of all by the Conservative Party but also by the Government before finally concluding this matter. Should you wish to do so we are available at any time to meet with members informally to discuss any issue.

Yours sincerely.

Jim Meikle.
Chair.
C.LA.R.E.

ANGER AS NEW PLANS REJECTED

EADT reports that CAMPAIGNERS fighting to build a new community college on the grounds of a doomed middle school have accused council bosses of being “short-sighted” after the plans were rejected.

Project leaders behind the bid for the Stour Valley Community College in Clare spoke of their disappointment and described the decision of Suffolk County Council as a “wasted opportunity'

While admitting that they had almost given up hope on the project, campaigners last night called on the public to show their disgust after the project for the current middle school site had been backed by local schools, councils and 1,500 letters of support........

Full story at: http://www.eadt.co.uk/content/eadt/news/story.aspx?brand=EADOnline&category=News&tBrand=EADOnline&tCategory=news&itemid=IPED17%20Dec%202008%2021%3A59%3A46%3A623

C.L.A.R.E appear to have lost their battle for a rural secondary school

Suffolk County Councils (SCC) response to the C.L.A.R.E proposal is contained in a letter from Rosalind Turner, Director for Children and Young People and is available on the blog (see previous post).

SCC's argument is short term hiding the true cost of £25m required to develop the two secondary schools in Haverhill. Work is not likely to be completed by the 2011 deadline and Suffolk County Council is not likely to be around to be accountable for their decision!

Watch this space for more information in the coming days to hear how this decision will affect your child and what you can do about it.

C.L.A.R.E

Official response from Suffolk County Council to the C.L.A.R.E secondary school proposal - A sad day for rural education

Suffolk County Council
Children & Young People’s Services
_________________________________________________

Endeavour House
8 Russell Road
IPSWICH
IP1 2BX

Tel: 01473 264629
Fax: 01473 216889
Email: phil.whiffing@cyp.suffolkcc.gov.uk
Web: http://www.suffolk.gov.uk

Our Ref: PW/2008-12-11JMeikle
Date: 16 December 2008

Dear Jim,

Draft Proposal for Stour Valley Community College

Many thanks for the meeting we had at Endeavour House on December 4th between members of the CLARE group and members of the County Council cabinet. I know that Phil Whiffing has met with your group subsequently to work through the various figures and analysis in more detail. I am now writing to you with the official County Council response to your proposal, as agreed.

Firstly, it is important to say that the County Council recognises the commitment, enthusiasm and effort that has gone into the preparation of the proposal. Members of the cabinet, and my own team, have all been very impressed by the quality of thinking and presentation put into the proposal. There is no doubt that if we were actively commissioning a new school in the area, we would want to work with your group to take this further.

Unfortunately, after careful examination of the proposal, we feel that:

· There is no evidence of the need for additional secondary school places in the area,
· Local secondary schools already provide high quality education,
· There is concern that the size of the proposed school is inconsistent with the Council’s
agreed principles for school organisation. Furthermore, if the school reached a size
consistent with those principles, another school could fall below the preferred size and the quality of education offered to its students could be compromised,
· An additional school would increase capital and revenue costs to the detriment of existing
schools.
· While for those children who live in Clare there would be less travel, the majority of the
children would need to travel similar distances,
· An additional school would add to the complexity of delivering the 14-19 entitlement
adding to the travel required.

I must re-emphasise, that the proposal would be welcome if there were a need for additional school places in the area, or a need to address the quality of secondary school provision. However after considering the factors above, it is not possible to recommend Local Authority support for this proposal. The Leader of the Council and portfolio holder for children, young people and schools are fully in agreement with this position. I have attached a document giving a more detailed feedback on the proposal.

The County Council is keen to restate its commitment to ensuring viable primary education in Clare, and is actively working with the headteacher, chair of governors and others to confirm the best possible site for the expansion of the first school into a 4-11 year primary school. The preferred option would seem to be an expansion on the current town centre site. Although the details are not yet finalised and the scheme is not yet signed off, this is the option being taken forward currently.

The Councillors were also very interested in the wider community aspects of the CLARE group’s proposal. While the primary school will be larger and able to provide extended services, the County Council would also like to work with St. Edmundsbury Borough Council and other potential partners to maintain and extend the community activities that currently occur at the Middle School. We would be very happy to meet with you and the group in the New Year to consider how this might be taken forward.

Until then, many thanks again for everything you and the group have done. I know this is not the answer you were hoping for, but I hope that you are reassured that your proposal has been given very serious consideration and that there are other possibilities, which we could work on together.

I am sending a copy of this letter to the Department for Children, Families and Schools, and to the local MPs. As I mention the primary school, I am also copying this to the headteacher, Mrs Horner, and to Essex County Council.

Yours sincerely


ROSALIND TURNER
Director for Children and Young People


Cc: Caroline Kerr, DCSF
Tim Yeo MP
Richard Spring MP
Mrs J. Horner, Clare primary school
Graham Toombs, Director of Children’s Services, Essex County Council

Huge support from Campaign for Real Education

A post on the Conservativehome blog by Nick Seaton of CRE supports the Clare campaign for a secondary school and asks why a Tory Suffolk Council closing a good school and saving a bad one?

He goes on to say that Clare is a small town in Suffolk situated roughly midway between Haverhill and Sudbury, each of which is about 10 miles away. At present, Clare has an excellent Middle School and Technology College for 9 to 13 year-olds, which Suffolk County Council (SCC) wants to close. Changing from a 3 tier to a 2 tier system of primary and secondary schools is sensible, but closing Clare's middle school instead of increasing the age-range it covers means that from the age of 11 upwards, children will be forced unnecessarily to travel perhaps 20 miles each day to and from secondary schools in either Haverhill or Sudbury.
Even if other considerations are ignored, at a time when we are supposedly faced with global warming and overcrowded roads, does it make sense to close a successful and popular local school? Common sense says not.

The blog gives those reading the post the opportunity to comment and many have! Read the full article and have your say by clicking on this link http://conservativehome.blogs.com/localgovernment/2008/12/why-is-tory-suf.html

Campaign for real education attacks school closure

A STINGING criticism of Conservative-controlled Suffolk County Council's “anti-choice” education policy has been published on an Internet blog site read daily by tens of thousands of Tory voters.

Nick Seaton, of the Campaign for Real Education, said that children will suffer from the decision in particular to shut Clare Middle School and accused the council of “allowing left wing bureaucrats to drive” its schools policy.

He was backed yesterday by Suffolk South's Tory MP Tim Yeo who said he was “disappointed” that the council was not following the party's policy nationally of supporting aspirational parents who want to keep good schools open.

Read the fully story at http://www.eadt.co.uk/content/eadt/news/story.aspx?brand=EADOnline&category=News&tBrand=EADOnline&tCategory=news&itemid=IPED16%20Dec%202008%2020%3A23%3A53%3A183

C.L.A.R.E deliver school proposal to Suffolk County Council

Members of the C.L.A.R.E group (arrive at Endeavor House, Ipswich to hand deliver the proposal document for a community college in Clare.

C.L.A.R.E to meet school minister, Jim Knight

C.L.A.R.E are to meet with Jim Knight, Minister for schools and learners, later today. Members of the group are to travel up to London this afternoon to attend a meeting at Westminster, which was kindly set up by south Suffolk MP Tim Yeo's office.

The group are excited to have been given this opportunity and will be putting forward their argument for a rural community school in Clare.

http://www.eadt.co.uk/content/eadt/news/story.aspx?brand=EADOnline&category=News&tBrand=EADOnline&tCategory=news&itemid=IPED19%20Oct%202008%2023%3A25%3A58%3A447

Road-show success - Over 1000 Letters of Support!

We would just like to say a big thank you to all of you who attended the C.L.A.R.E roadshow and to the 1052 of you who took the time to complete our Letter of Support. Yes, in just those few weeks over the summer holiday, we received 1052 letters of support for a new rural secondary school in Clare.

The roadshow was a huge success and not only gave us the opportunity to present our vision for the Stour Valley Community College but gave us the chance to speak directly to parents and residents throughout the villages and get a real understanding of what the expectations are for the new school. It also introduced us to a number of key contacts with specialist skills who are now assisting us with the proposal, due to be submitted at the end of September.

We don't have much time and the team certainly have their work cut out. As you can imagine the application for a new school is a fairly comprehensive document and requires a considerable amount of work but although a busy time for all those involved, it is an exciting time and we are as keen as ever!

So, keep supporting us and if you haven't already added yourself to the mailing list, then please do.

Many thanks

Mailing list

Dear All,

We have had a few problems with the C.L.A.R.E mailing list this week but seem to have rectified them now. Apologies to those who received the same mail more than once and possibly a test message.

All those on our list should have received a 'Thank you' mail this week with details of the 'Letter of Support' and post box locations. If you did not, then please mail us at support@our-community-our-school.co.uk and we'll mail a copy straight back to you.

Many thanks
C.L.A.R.E

Download the Letter of Support at www.our-community-our-school.co.uk/Support_letter.pdf

C.L.A.R.E reveal Community College plan in Clare

CAMPAIGNERS who want to save a doomed middle school by creating a community college are seeking support ahead of a “critical stage” in the proposal.

This week, those fighting to keep senior school education in Clare, near Sudbury, formally unveiled plans for the Stour Valley Community College.

To read the full story, click the link below:

http://www.eadt.co.uk/content/eadt/news/story.aspx?brand=EADOnline&category=News&tBrand=EADOnline&tCategory=News&itemid=IPED09%20Jul%202008%2023%3A10%3A55%3A147

Letter of Support - Download here!

Join your community in supporting the proposal for a rural college in Clare for children aged between 11-16.

If you have not already signed our 'Letter of Support' then please do so NOW, we've made it easy for you! Just click the link below to download a copy

http://www.our-community-our-school.co.uk/Support_letter.pdf

then print, sign and post in our dedicated postboxes situated around the town and villages.

Postbox Locations

Cavendish Primary School (until end of Summer term only)
Clare Middle School (until end of Summer term only)
Clare Primary School (until end of Summer term only)
7, High St, Clare (opposite Cardamon Indian Restaurant)
Glemsford Primary School (until end of Summer term only)
The Half Moon, Belchamp St Paul (open times only)
Hartest Primary School (until end of Summer term only)
Hundon Village Shop (open times only)
Wickhambrook Post Office (open times only)

If you experience a problem downloading or posting the letter of support then please contact us at support@our-community-our-school.co.uk

Many thanks

C.L.A.R.E

C.L.A.R.E ROAD SHOW DATES ANNOUNCED!

C.L.A.R.E have this week announced the dates and venues for the road show presentations. These are as follows:-

8th July 08 @ 8pm - Clare Middle School
9th July 08 @ 8pm - Hundon Primary School
10th July 08 @ 8pm - Hartest Primary School
15th July 08 @ 8pm- Glemsford Church Hall
16th July 08 @ 8pm - Belchamp Community House
17th July 08 @ 8pm - Wickhambrook Pavillion Lounge

The purpose of the roadshow is to introduce the outline proposal for the new Community College, which will be presented to both local and national government, via a pre-determined process, for their consideration and final decision.

Letters are being sent to all parents via the school book bags and posters will be displayed around the town and villages.

These meetings are open to the whole community and not just the parents. Please make a note of the date, be sure to attend and spread the word!

TOWN COULD BE SET FOR NEW SCHOOL

CAMPAIGNERS fighting to save education in their town after the abolition of middle schools were last night given fresh hope with the prospect of a new school.
Read the full story below....

http://www.eadt.co.uk/content/eadt/news/story.aspx?brand=EADOnline&category=News&tBrand=EADOnline&tCategory=News&itemid=IPED11%20Jun%202008%2015%3A20%3A24%3A500

'Statement of Intent' Proposal for a New Secondary School in Clare

Ms Rosalind Turner
Director for Children and Young People
Suffolk County Council
Endeavour House
8 Russell Road
Ipswich
Suffolk
IP1 2BX

Friday, 11 April 2008

Dear Ms Turner

Statement of Intent: Proposal for a New Secondary School in Clare

Background
The Government has stated that it wishes parents and their children to be at the heart of their schools system, so that the system as a whole is increasingly driven by parents and choice.

The Government also believes that all children should be able to attend an excellent local secondary school where aspirations are high, the quality of teaching is good and the children enjoy learning. With that in mind, the Government has passed legislation to give a range of groups the right to submit proposals for a new school whenever one is needed (DCSF guidance, 11/03/08).

Parent and Community Promoters
We are a group of parents and community representatives from the town of Clare and the surrounding area with a desire to create a new secondary school (11-16) in Clare, located on the current Clare Middle School site. Within the proposed reorganisation there will be a serious deficiency in choice and diversity in schools provision for our local children (ref. DCSF Guide to Local Authorities: Duty to Respond to Parental Representations about the Provision of Schools, p.6 (28)).

Our Vision
The new secondary school will provide a centre of excellence for students to gain confidence and expertise in the specialist area (specialism to be decided, in liaison with other local schools and to complement current provision within the area) at the centre of a broad-based curriculum. The students will learn to balance a healthy respect for family values and our community’s environment and heritage, with the insights, intelligence and innovation needed to ensure
that the area continues to compete in an increasingly technological, complex and global market. Above all, we seek to Open Minds to both their personal potential and the possibilities for our community under their leadership in theforeseeable future.

Our school will be at the heart of our community in all respects. As well as serving our students’ needs, our infrastructure will be designed to embrace lifelong learning beyond the compulsory education phase. Our college is committed to the provision of a secure, stimulating and inclusive environment in which all students are equally valued. Moreover, our warm and friendly atmosphere (building upon the current ethos and culture of Clare Middle School) and the confident, considerate, collaborative nature of our students will be key to our reputation and popularity with parents and members of the wider community.

We are keen to investigate the most appropriate category of school, be that a school with Trust status, a Foundation school, etc. We have already identified and approached a number of potential partners who are keen to collaborate with us. In order to be able to offer an inclusive curriculum for the 14-19 age range we intend to offer federated provision and delivery in conjunction with a number of educational partners in Suffolk and beyond.

Rural v Urban Schools
We believe that the new school would best serve the needs of our particular rural community and we would suggest that you should consider the needs of all communities, including ours, when planning the provision of schools places (ref. DCSF Guide to Local Authorities: Duty to Respond to Parental Representations about the Provision of Schools, p.4 (18)). This is further supported in the DCSF guidance (p.5 (23)) “Parents in rural and urban areas... have very different expectations of the choice of school available and there are complexities in meaningfully comparing the experience of parents in different areas.”

Local Authority Duties
As you will be aware, Section 13 of the Education Act 1996 establishes the high-level functions of the local authority in securing education for the area, which it should undertake with a view to promoting high standards and (as amended by the Education and Inspections Act 2006) the fulfilment of educational potential for every child and with a view to ensuring fair access to educational opportunity. Our proposal for a new secondary school in Clare will actively support this.

Proposal
It is our intention to submit a full and viable proposal for this new school, which we ask you to consider under your duty to secure diversity in the provision of schools and increase opportunities for parental choice (ref. Education and Inspections Act 2006, section 2 (a) and (b)). We can demonstrate strong parental and wider community support, and have identified a need for the school. To prepare a full proposal, however, we would request that you provide us with an appropriate level of support and guidance as outlined in the section “Consultancy, Support and Guidance” below.

Duty to Respond to Parental Representation
We trust you will respond formally to this parental representation in a proportionate way and within a reasonable timescale, as outlined in section 3 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006, and we would certainly expect an initial response within four weeks (ref. DCSF Guide to Local Authorities: Duty to Respond to Parental Representations about the Provision of Schools, p.7 (34)).

Consultancy, Support and Guidance
Furthermore, could you please confirm that you will provide us with dedicated consultancy support to help us develop a concrete proposal (ref. DCSF Guide to Local Authorities: Duty to Respond to Parental Representations about the Provision of Schools, p.1 (4)). As we are submitting a proposal outside a competition, we would expect you to provide expert support and guidance to us as parent promoters to help us formulate our proposals (ref. DCSF Guide to Local Authorities: Duty to Respond to Parental Representations about the Provision of Schools, p.11 (45)).

Cross-Border Movements
Our plans incorporate a certain element of cross-border movement of pupils from the outlying villages in Essex for which Clare is the natural central conurbation. We would ask you to confirm that you will consider this when responding to our proposal and that you will actively explore the possibilities of collaborating with colleagues in Essex (ref. DCSF Guide to Local Authorities: Duty to Respond to Parental Representations about the Provision of Schools, p.2 (9)). We will be approaching Essex County Council with a similar Statement of Intent in due course.

Rural Schools
The Government recognises that local schools are at the heart of many rural communities and that closing a rural school can have effects well beyond the schooling of the children. Clare Middle School (deemed secondary) is classified as a “rural school”. As you will be aware, since 1998 there has been a “presumption against the closure of rural schools”. Advice provided to us by the DCSF suggests that “Clare (Middle) School is a rural school on edubase (but not on the list of designated rural schools as these are just primary). Nonetheless the presumption against closing a rural school still applies” (10/03/08). Our proposal would retain this rural school within the rural context; moreover, we are actively pursuing the possibility of the new school having a “rural dimension” alongside the chosen specialism.

Closure of a Maintained School
It is our understanding that the case for the closure of a school needs to be strong and clearly in the best interests of educational provision in the area. Closure can only be justified when all the parties agree, or when an alternative school can offer superior facilities (based on DCSF guidance, 17/03/08). Our proposal to locate the new school on the Clare Middle School site has strong cross-community support and would actively safeguard this educational resource within the rural context. Indeed, our proposal for the new school includes plans for a range of extended services, for use by children of all ages as well as members of the wider community.

We trust that you will be able to respond to the specific requests above and would ask you to please confirm receipt of this Statement of Intent within 5 working days. We would appreciate an initial response by Monday 21 April 2008, and an indication of who will be our dedicated contact at the Council in this particular case. We look forward to hearing from you and are happy to provide further details on request.

Yours sincerely



Jim Meikle
Chair, C.L.A.R.E
26 Hertford Road, Clare CO10 8QJ

The above statement is endorsed by:


Patrick Daniels
Chair, Clare Parish Council Secretary

John Collecott
Clare Society

Brown takes new initiative to save failing schools

As reported by the Guardian newspaper.
Follow link to read full story:-

http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,2279862,00.html

C.L.A.R.E outline of response to the SOR consultation process held 29th Oct 07 -18th Jan 08

Representation in respect of LEA statutory public notices issued 11 April 2008

Outline of response to the SOR consultation process held from 29 October 2007 to 18 January 2008

Stakeholders forums – written exercises groups undertook were ignored or not included in the SOR principles (for example see enclosed Haverhill meetings of Head teachers and Chairs of Governors, suggested amendments arising from Stakeholders forum 26 June).

During the last week of consultation on line access to complete SOR questionnaire was at times unavailable.

Decision to introduce a “preferred” option was local SOR Officers decision not that of the main Directorate (JM documentary evidence).

At public meetings officers were not willing to discuss financial implications of any of the options, even though SOR booklet p.16, unfairly loads option 3 as having “significantly higher capital cost implications than either the leading option or option 2”.

To date there has been no independent assessment on the economic, social, and environmental impact managed by SOR. They have simply relied on responses from Clare representative bodies. (see enclosed response 13 December from SCC James Maddison Planning and Strategic Commissioning re; request under Freedom of Information Act).

There are currently no options developed to cover 6th Form provision (see SCC Cabinet meeting 4 March 2008 agenda item 5, p.67.) Yet the lack of 6th Form provision was cited by SOR as a reason why option 3 was not viable.

The imperative to “future proof” educational provision ignores the fact that Haverhill is potentially set to expand at a much faster rate than SOR has forecast. This is pending decisions on the St Edmundsbury Local Development Framework which is still in consultation.

Equally in terms of ‘future proofing’ the SOR wholly ignored the fact that the Boundary Commission are currently reviewing local government organisation in Suffolk to create Unitary Authorities decision due December 2008.

The research concerning secondary school size used by SOR for “preferred” option 1 is not definitive (see enclosed evidence).

Letters from 2 Haverhill Head teachers to parents; Howard Lay (Samuel Ward) used his position of influence to argue for the “preferred” option. He cites in his letter incorrect impact costs of £18 million prejudicial to option 3. (see enclosed letter 8 November 2007). Ms. A. Grimstone Acting Head Teacher Castle Hill Community Middle school repeated the same erroneous points (see enclosed letter 23 November 2007).

Public consultation meeting 19 November 2007 at CMS Frank Stockley (Western Area Education Officer) had to admit that impact costs were more likely to be in the region of £7-9 million. The ‘detailed desk top publication’ analysing costs which was quoted amounted to 3 sides of A4 for the 3 options.

Bid for BSF funding has not yet been placed; it is debatable whether such monies should be invested in Castle Manor when it could be invested in maintaining a Community high school in Clare.


Public Consultation Documents

· Questionnaire sent to interested parties insufficiently resourced. For example:

1 Copy sent to Parish Council

Preschools in Clare and Hundon had to contact SOR team for questionnaires – relying on
parents to acquire information rather than information being sent to them.

Insufficient numbers sent to pre schools and Clare Library.

Late delivery of questionnaires to pre schools

Despite being within SOR criteria 5 mile radius the booklet was not distributed to Belchamp or
Ridgewell primaries. Consequently, parents felt under informed.

· Questionnaire asks for the opinion from community members who do not have school age children. This was never resourced or publicised to wider community therefore many did not have the opportunity to express opinions.

· Parent feedback on language of questionnaire was that the language used was confusing and inaccessible to many. No glossary of terms was incorporated.

· Parent feedback on format of questionnaire was that much of the questionnaire was irrelevant to rural areas and this made the questionnaire difficult to follow.

· Parents were unaware of the online survey for children. No publicity was given to make this process inclusive to children.

· Online survey for children was only available on WP not accessible for Mac users. Clare Middle School uses only Macs.

· Children at Clare Middle School could not access the survey as explained above. Therefore they filled in questionnaires to be returned.

· Questionnaires returned by children from Clare Middle School, as they could not access online survey were sidelined and treated separately in the report to cabinet as a separate “batch”.

· There was inadequate consultation with the children who are in the front line of the Schools Reorganisation. No regard was given to their opinions, therefore process was not inclusive.


Public Meetings

· Parents at each consultation felt meetings were badly chaired (see consultation list enclosed for meetings attended).

· Parents not allowed to question officers closely or to come back and ask for clarification on questions asked leading to frustration and annoyance at the process.

· Parents informed that if questions were asked to which officers were unable to answer at time, a response would be provided to parents after officers had sought further information to give an informed answer. No mechanism was put in place to fulfil this obligation. Parents still awaiting responses.

· SOR team did not have up-to-date information from other authorities that had gone through similar processes.

· Parents at Glemsford, Cavendish, and Hartest schools attended public meetings and were consulted on options without the officers having any plans for the transfer of these children as they transfer into Sudbury, making these meetings of no value.

· SOR team were constantly asked what was going to happen to children in Glemsford, Cavendish and Hartest. Answers given changed from meeting to meeting. Officers either did not know the answers or were unwilling to inform people. If they did not have a solution at that stage people in the Cavendish, Glemsford and Hartest areas should have had their public meetings delayed until a solution was forth coming.

· Solution to the Glemsford, Cavendish and Hartest problem was given after the consultation process closed on 18th January 2008 without parents being consulted on the SOR team’s solution. This disenfranchised three whole communities. Parents did not have an option of expressing opinions or asking questions about the SOR team’s solution. This was never put forward as an option in the consultation papers. Parents of current years1&2 in particular are very concerned about how Sudbury Upper School (which is in phase 3 of the reorganisation) will have appropriate or adequate resources for their children who will move at age eleven ahead of Sudbury’s reorganisation.

· Further examples of the changing of solutions “on the hoof” are: SOR team members announced at Clare Primary School meeting 22.11.07 the school is not fit for purpose and should be moved to Middle School site. This was never put forward as an option in the consultation papers.

· In two statements it is said “reaction to the suggestion that the Clare Primary might move to the Middle School site was mixed” (2008 Cabinet report Lowestoft and Haverhill appendix 11 p9) and “the proposal to relocate the primary school received few comments” (public notice of proposals for Clare Primary School 11th April) this was because parents were both shocked and surprised at new information being introduced.

· Parents told of new sixth form centre in Haverhill. This is now delayed while further consultation takes place. Why then was no opportunity for further consultation given to Glemsford, Cavendish and Hartest parents with the transfer solution for their children and the moving of Clare Primary School to middle school site? Further evidence of bias against the rural communities.

· Questions from parents were recorded in a book at each meeting. No minutes taken and no copies of what was recorded were provided to parents as a true record of what had taken place.

Public Notices Issued 11 April 2008

“Changes to schools in Haverhill and the surrounding areas”

· The notices currently outside schools are general notices about the size of school and age proposals. The public notices that set out in detail the proposals for each school have not been displayed; the legal requirement to do this changed last year. SOR have advertised that the proposals can be found at libraries and yet Clare library has no copies of detailed proposals for any area, schools have none either. If parents and communities want to be fully informed they have to access the internet and many have complained about the difficulty in finding the information easily. Those who may not have access to the internet have had to make individual requests to SOR for the detailed proposals. It has fallen to C.L.A.R.E. to make information more accessible and available.

· There has been great concern expressed about the proposed arrangements to ‘bus’ Clare primary children from the centre of the town if the school relocates to the middle school site, and ‘car use may be discouraged by the provision of a bus’. It is also suggested that parents and children ‘will walk to the site as they do now’ (p5 c,d,e,f,) pending feasibility studies. Safe walking and travel to school criteria set out by the road safety charity ‘Brake’ supported by the government campaign ‘Think’ demonstrates the legitimate concerns parents have (see enclosed Guidance Nov 2008)

· Currently the Clare MS School offers a rich and extensive range of over 45 extra curricular activities for pupils. If the age range is decreased to eleven years it is likely there will be a less varied programme offered and current links with local community projects will not be as strong. It is also a fact that extended services tend to thrive in secondary schools (Children’s Plan 2007) rather than in primaries. Examples of successful models are Linton and Comberton Community Colleges in Cambridgeshire.

Public notices for 'Changes to schools in Haverhill and the surrounding areas'

Your chance to say what you think about the changes to your child’s school and your community

You may have read about or seen public notices outside your school “Changes to schools in Haverhill and the surrounding areas”.

These notices mark the start of a six-week representation period between 11th April-23rd May for you to make your views known to Suffolk County Council about the proposed changes to your local school.

The notices outside schools are in fact general notices only about the size of school and age proposed changes. The public notices that set out in detail the proposals for each school have not been displayed as the legal requirement to do this changed last year. It would have been helpful if the Schools Organisational Review (SOR) displayed these publicly in each affected area so that parents and communities are fully informed about the proposed changes.

You can find the notices that have the detailed information for your school by following the link below:

http://www.suffolk.gov.uk/EducationAndLearning/Schools/SuffolkSchoolOrganisationReview/public+noticesgroupone.htm

Your school or local library should also have copies of the detailed notices for you to look at.

If for any reason you have difficulty getting the information for yourself or community group and would like copies of the notices for your area you can contact;

School Organisation Team West
Shire Hall
Raingate Street
Bury St Edmunds
Suffolk
IP33 1RX

Tel: 01284 352902

Or

Phil Whiffing
School Organisation Review
Suffolk County Council
Endeavour House
8 Russell Road
Ipswich
IP1 2BX

Tel: 01473 583000

We strongly urge you to have your say and reply to Phil Whiffing at the address above or if you wish to contact C.L.A.R.E. with your views at
support@our-community-our-school.co.uk we will include them in our representation to the Council.

To keep up to date with news and developments about the Schools reorganisation you can join our mailing list by contacting us on the email address above.

Key skills needed!

Community Appeal
- Professional help

Following the Suffolk County Council Cabinet decision to adopt Option One for the Haverhill area
C.L.A.R.E. is about to embark upon the next phase of the campaign to secure secondary education for the rural communities on the Clare Middle School site. To help further the cause the campaign team would welcome help from present or former professionals who may be prepared to donate some of their expertise and time in the following areas;

School Financial and Statistical Information Management.

Education Law,

Project Management.

Campaign Management.

Proposal to Local/Central Government Writing.

Secondary School Management.

Secondary School Facility Development [Architectural or Planning]

The campaign would be grateful if you know someone with these or other useful professional skills if you could approach them with a view to enlist their valuable help. Anyone who would like to find out more can contact us via the e mail address below or by telephoning the Chair.

Thank you.
Jim Meikle.
Chair.


support@our-community-our-school.co.uk
Tel: 01787 278476

Observer reports - Hundreds of village schools face axe!

Hundreds of village schools across Britain are being closed, despite a long-term pledge by the government to maintain education in the countryside. The policy U-turn will affect 30,000 children in up to 300 schools in its first stage, The Observer has learnt. Campaigners warned last night that the 'nightmare scenario' would see more than 1,000 small schools in England and Wales at risk. The closures are taking place despite a promise by education minister Stephen Byers in 1998 that village schools would be protected

Full story at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jan/27/politics.schools

NEWSLETTER - MARCH 08

Welcome to the C.L.A.R.E newsletter, keeping you up to date with our campaign for rural education.

With the support of parents, teachers, governors, local businesses, societies, groups, councillors and MPs, C.L.A.R.E has been campaigning to keep secondary education in Clare. Option 3 of the School Organisation Review provided the solution allowing for three secondary schools within the Haverhill cluster, two in Haverhill and one in Clare. However, on 4th March 2008, the cabinet voted unanimously in favour of Option 1, two secondary schools only, both in Haverhill.

Although bitterly disappointed, we are not deterred. In fact, we are more determined than ever that Clare WILL get its secondary school. We believe that Clare town can continue to support future education in the area and is the best option for the children and the local community.
C.L.A.R.E will shortly be holding a public meeting for which details will follow; however in the meantime, here is some food for thought…

· Under Option 1, both of the two Haverhill schools will be larger than the council’s preferred optimum size of 900-1200 pupils. Recent research has proved that smaller schools perform better. Option 3 would keep pupil numbers to a respectable size and allow for future growth. Sudbury, Haverhill and indeed villages across the Essex border will all see considerable building development over the next decade.

· The School Organisation review promised better education for 14-18 year olds with provision for a purpose-built sixth form centre in Haverhill. This will now be assessed under a separate consultation for which there has been no timescales set. Until such time, Castle Manor and Samuel Ward will continue to have sixth forms as before.

· Clare pupils previously had the choice of Haverhill or Sudbury upper schools. Sudbury is in phase two of the review which is two years behind and therefore no longer a choice. Parents of children on the Sudbury side of Clare middle school are still waiting clarification. Those applying to schools outside their catchment area are not being accepted. There is no parental choice.

· We have been informed that there will be a separate consultation to move the Clare primary school to the middle school site. The site is totally unsuitable for primary school children and we would assume will be revamped. Current facilities in the middle school would not be available as the national curriculum for this age group does not require them. Why is the council considering moving the school? If it is a question of space, where do the local small village primaries fair? Could we be looking at a large ‘Rural’ primary school?!

Since the decision on 4th March we have been contacted by many unhappy parents across the county all asking us what they can do. Like us, they believe their children deserve better.

To join us in our campaign and keep up to date with news and developments visit our website at
http://www.our-community-our-school.co.uk/ or mail us at support@our-community-our-school.co.uk.
We would love to hear from you.

School review cost 'Out Of Control'

As reported by the East Anglian Times

When Suffolk County Council decided to pursue its school organisation review (SOR) last year, the entire process was expected to cost between £58million and £70million.
But it has now emerged the cost of the SOR in Haverhill and Lowestoft alone could cost as much as £73million, with the Haverhill portion now expected to cost between £18.7 and £25.7million, Lowestoft between £7.8 and £21.1million and a new secondary school for Lowestoft at a cost of £26.5million.
It means the end total for just these two towns could reach £73.3 million - more than £3million above the original cost set out for the entire SOR project.
It does not account for the next areas to be looked at which include Saxmundham, Leiston, Brandon, Beccles, Bungay, Leiston, Mildenhall, Bury St Edmunds, Sudbury, Thurston and Stowmarket.
Keith Anderson, honorary secretary of the National Association of Schoolmasters, Union of Women Teachers (NASUWT), said the current figures would spiral upwards still further if the council created a new sixth form centre for Haverhill.He said he now feared, faced with the mounting SOR bill, the county council might plug for the cheapest option.“It would not surprise me if they try doing this on the cheap. The reality will start to come home and this is just Haverhill and Lowestoft. This will be a huge concern for pupils, parents and staff.”

Full story at: http://www.eadt.co.uk/content/eadt/news/story.aspx?brand=EADOnline&category=News&tBrand=EADOnline&tCategory=news&itemid=IPED10%20Mar%202008%2023%3A05%3A14%3A940

C.L.A.R.E mailing list

Would you like to be kept up to date with information? Then join our mailing list.
Just mail us your thoughts on the School Organisation Review and we will add your email address to our database.

Those of you who have already been in contact will be automatically added.

All comments and feedback are gratefully received :-)

Cabinet say NO to Option 3 but C.L.A.R.E are still fighting!

On Tuesday 4th March the cabinet met to decide the future of schools in the Haverhill cluster. Option 1, the councils leading option, is for two secondary schools in Haverhill, Option 3 includes a third school in Clare on the current middle school site.

Supporting Option 3 were Councillor Jane Midwood, Councillor Selwyn Prior, Councillor Kathy Pollard and Councillor Richard Kemp who all spoke of the benefits of a third secondary school in Clare and how it is the only way forward for the town and indeed the local area.

Parents and representatives from C.L.A.R.E, the Clare Parish Council and the Clare Society attended the cabinet meeting to hear the verdict.

Despite the immense support for Option 3, the eight cabinet members, Councillor O’ Brien, Councillor Pembroke, Councillor Newman, Councillor Storey, Councillor Chambers, Councillor Alcock, Councillor Spicer and Councillor Mc Gregor, voted unanimously in favour of Option 1.
Why? Well, we have our suspicions.

Although bitterly disappointed, we are not deterred. In fact, we are more determined than ever that Clare WILL get its secondary school.

Open letter from C.L.A.R.E to county council cabinet members

As printed in the Haverhill Echo

We note with disappointment the SOR Process Report to Cabinet that continues to advocate Option One for acceptance despite the fact the option substantially fails to meet the PDP criteria.
It is also of great concern that the report refers to numbers, year groups and monetary values as evidenced by section 99 of the report. The report rarely mentions our children as individuals who have been promised their rightful position at the top of the pyramid and access to 'world class education '.The cabinet will already be aware that the report has received a uniformly negative response from the press which demonstrates the strength of feeling throughout West Suffolk.

C.L.A.R.E, would argue that sufficient variation exists between the SOR Process Report and our submission to Cabinet to suggest that the consultation analysis and conclusions can be contested.

Consequently we would suggest an opportunity exists for Cabinet Members to select an option that can produce a win-win scenario politically and in the public interest. Option Three would provide that opportunity.Option Three satisfy's the rural electorate aspirations, whilst Haverhill could attain their long standing ambitions for the town's schools and Sudbury will be spared the chaos about to be inflicted upon them.

Their already oversubscribed infrastructure cannot possibly cope with a sudden influx of around 240 Glemsford, Cavendish and Hartest children created by the closure of the middle school.

The criteria to be used will prejudice out of catchment applications to Sudbury secondary schools, diminishing parental choice.Instead of having to endure temporary infrastructure for the foreseeable future those children would enjoy the 'world class education' they were promised in permanent and improving infrastructure in Clare. Meanwhile those in Haverhill and Sudbury can adjust to a new regime without impossible demands being placed upon them.

Members would be able to satisfy central government criteria for smaller schools and teaching units and could adjust catchment areas to provide a viable annual intake for both the rural and town secondary schools with respectable class numbers.We would ask members to consider if it is judicious to dispose of a potential stand alone community secondary school asset at a time when the borough councils are proceeding with expansive housing development plans for more than 7000 new homes for the 21st century.

Is it prudent therefore to reduce the number of school places and educational assets at a time of such development?For the last two years central government have not released the majority of the allocated BSF spend, can Members be confident that assured BSF funding will be forthcoming? Will planning constraints curtail estate disposal receipts and what impact will that create on viability if BSF funding is not forthcoming? Equally can the County Council cope whilst undergoing a substantial internal reorganisation with the management demand of the SOR process. Additionally there is a further risk to the continuity of our children's education should the boundaries commission create a new unitary district authority which is likely to have a different policy.

Surely the unanimous endorsement of Option Three by our county, district and parish councillors, our Member of Parliament, our local education establishment and the electorate suggests that option three has the greatest educational merit. Option Three will provide the promised 'world class education' for our children in the heart of all our communities' as a lasting testament and benchmark of which the Cabinet will be proud and other areas would have a greater confidence in the SOR process.

Any poposal other than Option Three will be an educational disaster for our children and a political calamity for our communities. There will also be serious economic, environmental and transportation implications.

Members brave enough to vote for Option Three can be confident they have voted for the 'actual bigger picture' and the long term aspirations of the SOR review process. Only then will the future of our children's education be assured into the 21st century.

Yours sincerely,
Clare & Local Area for Rural Eduction.

http://www.haverhillecho.co.uk/letters/Open-letter-from-CLARE-to.3831547.jp

Decision day for Clare Middle School!

Suffolk County Council will DECIDE the future of education for the children of Clare and surrounding villages at a Cabinet Meeting on

Tuesday 4 March 2008 at 1.30p.m.

This decision will not only affect the future of Clare Middle School and the rural schools which feed into it, but will set the precedent for the future of education across the whole of Suffolk.

This meeting is OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. We believe that parents and residents can still influence the decision by attending the meeting and showing the strength of our commitment to Clare Middle School.

It will be held in the Council Offices at:
Endeavour House, 8 Russell Road, Ipswich

For further details contact Georgina Lovejoy on 07989 442651

OUR COMMUNITY – OUR SCHOOL

Letters in this weeks Haverhill Echo

We're losing focus on children's education.....

http://www.haverhillecho.co.uk/letters/We39re-losing-focus-on-children39s.3751505.jp?articlepage=2

Trust status could be the reason for silence on catchment areas......

http://www.haverhillecho.co.uk/letters/Trust-status-could-be-the.3751514.jp

Schools minister Jim Knight says Rural schools order 'hypocritical'

Jim Knight ordered local authorities to protect rural schools
Ministers were accused of hypocrisy when they ordered local councils to keep rural schools open - after backing more closures last month.
Schools minister Jim Knight wrote to local authorities telling them to protect village primaries after a series of media headlines warned that hundreds could be shut down. The letter followed Government guidance last month that suggested councils can "take the opportunity" to close schools with empty places.
Mr Knight said: "Rural schools are central to the life of village communities. Over the last 10 years, we have made it a statutory requirement for councils to presume that rural schools should stay open.
"There is not, and never has been, any policy for closing rural schools. I am writing to local authorities to underline their legal duty to protect popular rural schools."
Guidance issued in December said maintaining surplus school places represents "a poor use of resources".
"The department expects local authorities to make the removal of surplus places a priority in their planning," the guidance said. The document said councils could consider "amalgamation and rationalisation" of primary schools in their area.
"Local authorities may, for example, take the opportunity to reorganise primary provision, close schools with consistently poor performance and/or excessive surplus places and place new buildings under the management of stronger heads," it said.
Liberal Democrat schools spokesman David Laws branded the Government's policy "confused and hypocritical".
"This week, ministers are telling everyone that the closure of smaller schools is not on the Government's agenda," he said.
"But official guidance issued last month tells local authorities to close smaller schools and remove surplus places as a 'priority'. Local authorities are being told that unless they follow the Government's blueprint, which includes closing up to one in 20 schools, they will not get the money for new primary schools."

http://news.aol.co.uk/rural-schools-order-hypocritical/article/20080130115809990007

New plans put 1:10 secondary schools at risk

Thursday January 31, 2008 The Guardian

Ministers order review after figures show almost 800,000 empty places Polly Curtis, education editor

A tenth of secondary schools have a quarter of student places empty
Plans to close a significant number of secondary schools in urban and rural areas are being drawn up because of a sharp fall in pupil numbers, the Guardian has learned. Almost one in 10 secondary schools has more than 25% surplus places, according to official figures.
Ministers have ordered a review of what to do about the increasing number of empty classroom seats in England, as the latest figures suggest there are 792,000 surplus places in schools. Local authorities are devising detailed plans to overhaul their school estates to fit the shifting school-age population.
School closures are proving controversial around the country. In Stoke-on-Trent, Herefordshire and the Isle of Wight, parent-led campaigns are increasing political pressure on the government to keep schools open. Shropshire county council was forced to abandon plans to close 22 primary schools last night after sustained parental protests.
The surplus of places leaves ministers facing the prospect of more school closures. The emotive issue could take on great significance in marginal seats. It is expected that some closures will be announced before the next general election, but the bulk will follow.
The government's figures, published this week, suggest that the decline in the number of primary-aged pupils is stabilising, with the impact beginning to hit secondaries all over the country.
John Dunford, the general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said: "Over the next five years falling [pupil] rolls are sharpest in secondary schools, [these] schools will reduce in size and some will become unviable."
The Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) has commissioned a review, jointly with the Audit Commission, of how to respond to the falls in pupil numbers. Key lines of inquiry include what savings might be made by removing surplus places and whether a nationally recognised minimum number of pupils should be agreed for secondary schools.
Local authorities are also drawing up plans to rebuild their school estates under the £50bn Building Schools for the Future programme, which will include widespread reorganisations, closures and mergers. "The programme will result in fewer schools," the DCSF said.
Official plans for rebuilding schools in four areas, seen by the Guardian, suggest that under-subscribed and poorer performing schools will be closed. Where there are too few pupils, schools with improving results could also shut.
Dunford said: "Vacant places cost money and there are plenty of other ways that money could be better spent." Closures would reduce options for parents to chose a school for their child, a key government promise, he added.
Tim Byles, chief executive of Partnerships for Schools, which is running the Building Schools programme, said construction projects would "reflect local needs and the reality of pupil numbers and demographic trends".
The plans for secondary schools were revealed after ministers moved to draw a line under the dispute over the closure of small rural primaries yesterday. Jim Knight, the schools minister, is to order councils to protect rural schools, but he was criticised after guidance from his department suggested local authorities should "ensure that no [primary] school has more than 25% surplus places".
Knight said: "We require councils to assess the full impact of closure on rural communities and allow every single parent to have their voice heard - and I am writing to local authorities to underline their legal duty to protect popular rural schools."
The shadow children's secretary, Michael Gove, said: "We know small schools provide an excellent education, so we should be doing everything possible to support them."

http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,2249693,00.html

C.L.A.R.E present their official response to Suffolk County Council

To view the document please click the link below and choose the file 'Clare PDP response'

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/ruralclare/files

Last chance to have your say!

Vote Option 3

If you have not already sent in your questionnaire, then please do so by Friday 18th January 2008. The questionnaire is available online at: http://www.suffolk.gov.uk/EducationAndLearning/Schools/SuffolkSchoolOrganisationReview/Haverhill+School+Organisation+Review.htm
Scroll down the page to 'Online questionnaire' and 'click here'. The questionnaire is targeted towards Haverhill town schools so we have put together a fact sheet to help you answer the questions. This can be downloaded at: http://groups.google.co.uk/group/ruralclare/files

All three options are viable but we believe that option 3, two secondary schools in Haverhill and one in Clare, is the best option for the Haverhill school cluster. Option 3 is not only the best option educationally, financially and environmentally, it will support the future growth of both Haverhill and Sudbury town.

Parents excellent response to Haverhill Weekly News letter

Sir,

We are parents of four children aged between 4 months and 6 years living in Clare. We would like to respond to Mr Connor’s thoughtful letter last week and set out why Option 3 will actually be beneficial to Haverhill, as well as to Clare and the surrounding villages.

Mr Connor’s understandable concern is that the creation of a secondary school in Clare will draw pupils and resources from Haverhill “to the detriment of educational opportunities for the majority of Haverhill’s young people”. There are two main reasons why this should not be a worry, in fact quite the reverse.

According to Suffolk County Council’s School Organisation Review consultation document, there are currently 450 pupils leaving the four middle schools covered by the review each year. This is not enough to meet the minimum intake of 180 for three secondary schools, however, the Suffolk County Council School Organisation Plan 2006-11 forecasts that they will be a need for an additional 125 secondary school places before the new schools open. This would allow three viable schools with an intake each of 191. The consultation document itself goes further to forecast a planned population growth of 480 pupils a year.

The issue here is not that three schools are too many, but that two schools will be too few. In ten years time do any of us really want our children lost in two gigantic secondary schools in Haverhill, each with 2,325 children?

This consultation process has been divisive for the communities of Haverhill and Clare, seemingly setting them against each other, but this is wrong. Option 3 doesn’t just give all of our children the opportunity to be educated in optimum sized schools, it will also bring our communities closer together and provide the best educational opportunities and choice for all. The radical changes to education for 14-19 year olds means that schools will have to work together with other education providers and local employers to offer a greater range of vocational and academic courses. Developing Clare Middle School into a Secondary School will provide an additional choice that can complement the Arts & Technology and Business & Enterprise specialism’s in Haverhill. In addition, all pupils will feed into the proposed new educational centre for 16 -19 year olds in Haverhill, which with its emphasis on working in partnership with local employers, will be of great benefit to both Haverhill’s local economy and business community.

We also encourage you to complete the consultation questionnaire. Our hope is that you choose Option 3, and choose to provide the young people of Haverhill, Clare and the surrounding villages with the best opportunity for an excellent education.

Yours faithfully

Phil & Jan Stanbury-Jones
Clare