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.