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