In two documents that we have seen, the Confidential Draft Transforming Schools for a Brighter Future: Possible Position Statement and the Executive and Members Board Agenda 26th February 2008, the following appears:

"Holden Lane High School is already designated as a specialist sports college and, although the site size is not extensive, it can continue to meet the needs of the community with refurbishment. It is proposed that support be given to this school for a change of status, but that no changes requiring statutory notices be carried out. The School governors have expressed some concerns about the process of seeking Foundation status and further discussions will continue".

According to all the measures that the Council has used in their process, the Holden Lane site is too small for a school of the proposed size. Why is Haywood being penalised for having a small site, while Holden Lane is not?

Maybe the document ought to contain something along the lines of:

"Haywood High School is already designated as a specialist Engineering College and, although the site size is not extensive, it can continue to meet the needs of the community with refurbishment. It is proposed that support be given to this school for consolidating its status as a Foundation School, but that no changes requiring statutory notices be carried out. The School governors have expressed concerns about the Council stalling on the finalisation of the process of acquiring Foundation status and further discussions will continue".

This would give hope to the Community that the Council are not vindictively seeking to close Haywood through inaction, and that each school in Stoke-on-Trent is being given equal attention.

Could the reason for this obvious discrepancy between two similar schools be that Holden Lane has kept very quiet during the consultation, while Haywood and its local community have been a little vocal?

Please level the playing fields - whether they be on-site or not!

The Council is applying double standards.

The following slides are taken from a document to be found on the Council's own website:

The guide site area is 8.89ha. The actual site is 7.08ha. The actual site size is 79.6% of the guideline size. Yet the Holden Lane site, smaller than the Haywood site when considered as a percentage of the guideline size, "can continue to meet the needs of the community".

The Council says that, for Holden Lane "a number of all weather pitches increase capacity". Fair enough. However, when the fact that Haywood has been denied all-weather pitches for years because of the proximity of Dimensions Leisure Centre, this seems to be a little strange. Especially when, in the current round of "consultation", the Council has denied Haywood the right to consider Dimensions to be part of their playing-field set-up.


It really seems that the Council intends to settle a score with Haywood by making sure that any refurbishment of the school is firmly at the bottom of the list.

Elected mayor Mark Meredith told TV viewers on The Politics Show on BBC1 that St Joseph's College will receive cash for a refurbishment - but only after more 'needy' schools are rebuilt as academies. (http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=158586&command=displayContent&sourceNode=158354&contentPK=19977019&folderPk=87656&pNodeId=158325#viewsFor)

In the Executive and Members Board Agenda, look at page 31. This shows an envisioned timescale of the whole transformation process. St Joseph's transformation runs from May 2010 (one of the last). Haywood's also runs from May 2010 - at the very bottom of the list! If a new school were being built on Acreswood, would it be classified as more "needy"?

On page 30, is a "Summary of Consultation Responses". There were 504 responses to the consultation process on behalf of Haywood. The next highest volume was 352 on behalf of St. Joseph's. 546 responses were received on behalf of all the other schools combined. There were four on behalf of Holden Lane. Wonder why?

Holden Lane's transformation runs from August 2008 to June 2011 (one of the first).

We need to make sure that Haywood's refurbishment is properly funded, and that cost overruns on other projects do not deprive Haywood of its due.

The Council might bear this in mind (from The Epistle of St Paul the Apostle to the Romans 12:19 [King James]):