South Gloucestershire | Archive | 2005 | June | 3
From the Gazette, first published Friday 3rd Jun 2005.
HAVING read Ali Dent's article "Future looks bleak for King Edmund", we felt compelled to respond yet again about the use of half-truths and inaccuracies to support what appears, if you read the press, to be a foregone conclusion.
Who says, " One of Yate and Chipping Sodbury's three secondary is almost certain to close"? Does this not pre-empt the outcomes of this sham of a consultation? Surely, the decision, whatever decision, will be made after the consultation process?
At Monday's council meeting there were only three options on the "table" initially, and thankfully the council thought "outside the box" for a change and following pressure agreed to the fourth option, of retaining the current position of three schools.
The council's press release indicated this, but did not confirm that if this were the case, King Edmund would receive the TCF government grant, awarded in 2004.
We are encouraged that our local MP Steve Webb and the majority of the Lib Dem councillors have not been fooled by the "sleight of hand tactics the council appears to be using". Namely, there has been a surplus of secondary school places in the area for a number of years and yet the council's response was to increase the standard number of Brimsham Green School, so that they are now taking an extra 60 places a year, 300 over 5 years. Where's the logic in that?
Moreover, if there is a surplus of secondary school places, there must have been a surplus of primary school places and there still are, in primary schools in the area. The council's response is to herald the re-building of a primary school. Where's the logic in that?
The council's 2004-2009 Draft School Organisation Plan recommended that the current situation of having three secondary schools should be retained, yet at the same time recognising a growing surplus of primary school places.
The Director of Education is quoted as saying " falling pupil numbers at King Edmund and a collapse of exam results means the school is unviable", why does one year's poor results mean that the school is unviable? Isn't there a connection between the increase in the numbers attending Brimsham Green and an acceleration in the number of surplus places in the other two schools?
We feel that the Director of Education has been irresponsible in only focussing on " a collapse of exam results", she has consistently failed to mention the commendable A Level and Key Stage 3 results of King Edmund or to mention the prior performance of students on entry at the age of eleven. We are surprised that the focus on one year's results seems to take prominence when the big picture provides a different story. We are further disappointed that the Director conveniently failed to mention that the school was the recipient of a national award for most improved exam performance in the recent past.
What infuriates us most is that the original three options in the draft school re-organisation plan indicated the establishment of a vocational centre for the area. The TCF award was given to establish this at King Edmund for the benefit of students in the area. This was heralded by the council in 2004, so why suddenly change their view? Most certainly, there was no mention of surplus places at that time.
So why not retain the current position of three secondary schools in the area, use the TCF money to build a vocational centre on King Edmund's site, allow the designation of it being a specialist Business and Sports college to be embedded and potentially rid the school of its surplus places, and the same time postpone the building of a new sports hall at Brimsham Green subject to the outcome of the re-organisation consultation. Now that is logical, isn't it?
Derek and Maggie Wilcox Chipping Sodbury
© Newsquest Media Group 2008