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