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.