1.
|
|
Stoke
on Trent
has been given the chance to dramatically
improve the infrastructure of our schools through the provision of
£200
million under the Building Schools for the Future ("BSF") programme.
|
2.
|
|
This
money
can be used to rebuild and/or refurbish the secondary schools across
the city.
However, it is accepted that there is a decline in the numbers of
pupils across
the city which needs to be reflected in the number of schools. However,
the
figures used by SERCO in their proposals do not reflect Office of
National Statistics ("ONS") projections of pupil numbers based on
above-average birth rates in the city (See Appendix
One). Consequently
instead
of the number of pupils going into secondary education according to
SERCO being
12,000, ONS estimate that there will be around 13,000 pupils in 2015.
As this is an estimate, it would be prudent to assume a 10% margin of
error and therefore the schools should look to accommodate 14,300
pupils.
|
3.
|
|
SERCO
has
then assumed that a school should take around 1,000 pupils as being at
the lower
end of the optimum scale for school size. Again this is disputed based
on evidence (Appendix Two) that shows there
is no
"one-size-fits-all" optimum size. Indeed locally there are
examples of very good smaller schools and very good larger schools and
the
reverse. It is therefore proposed that schools that are being
refurbished
are allowed to maintain their existing size with the option of organic
growth
in future in line with Government's proposals to allow good schools to
expand as local
demand requires.
|
4.
|
|
It
is noted
that SERCO plan to abolish catchment areas which therefore contradicts
the view
they previously put forward that schools should not be too close to
each other,
such as Longton and Sandon High Schools. Our view is
that catchment areas should be disregarded, but that this then enables
schools to be located nearest to local communities showing greatest
educational, health, and social deprivation (Appendix
Three).
|
5.
|
|
Aside
from
addressing the factors around deprivation, placing schools nearer to
the communities
they are to serve also addresses the issues relating to transport which
are
unique to Stoke on Trent.
There is both an absence of wide-spread travelling within the city and
indeed a transport infrastructure that serves to hamper cross-city
travelling
with a non-centric geography. Furthermore it is against both national
and indeed local
authority recommendations for pupils to travel distances to school,
particularly
when there are not safe routes to school (Appendix
Four).
|
6.
|
|
Good
practice already exists whereby schools share both building resources
and teaching
staff. It is proposed to build further on this good work with
partnership working
between schools and developing a more collegiate approach. For example,
teachers
could be shared across two or more schools, for example a History
Teacher might work
two days at School A, two days at School B, and one day at School C.
Schools
could share sports facilities and make use of specialist enterprise
classrooms.
|
7.
|
|
The
Alternative Proposal in more detail: |
|
a)
|
St. Joseph's
College. It is proposed to retain this school on its existing
site without closure. The school will work collaboratively with
Trentham High to share teaching and sports facilities.
|
|
b) |
Trentham High
School. This school will be refurbished and continue to
serve the Trentham and Hanford communities working in partnership with
St. Joseph's College to share resources. |
|
c)
|
Blurton High School.
This school will be rebuilt adjacent to the existing school at that
site. |
|
d) |
Edensor High School.
It is agreed that the site is unsuitable for
rebuilding upon and will therefore close. It is envisaged that pupils
will attend either the new Blurton High, St. Thomas More, or the new
school sited near to the old Longton High school. |
|
e) |
St. Thomas More
School. This school will remain largely unaffected
and will be allowed to grow organically in future in line with
Government policies. The school would not be forced to take pupils not
wishing to sign up to the Catholic Ethos of the school. |
|
f)
|
Kemball Special
School. This school should remain unchanged with some
refurbishment as appropriate. |
|
g) |
Longton High School.
The existing school will close and a new
school should be built on the far-end playing fields with a new access
being opened up to the site in addition to the Box Lane access. In the
absence of catchment areas there is not an issue ; regarding the
proximity of Sandon High. |
|
h) |
Sandon High School.
This school would be largely unaffected by the
proposals and would continue to move to its new building later this
year. |
|
i) |
Birches Head. |
|
j) |
Berry Hill. |
|
k)
|
Brownhills.
|
|
l)
|
Haywood. |
|
m)
|
Holden Lane. |
|
n) |
James Brindley. |
|
o) |
Mitchell. |
|
p) |
Thistley Hough. |
|
q) |
St. Margaret Ward. |
|
r) |
St. Peter's High. |
|
s) |
Aynsley Special
School. |
|
t) |
Heathfield Special
School. |
|
u) |
Abbey Hill School. |
|
v) |
Middlehurst
Special School. |
8.
|
|
Under
these arrangements there will be no need to close schools
that are being rebuilt or closed permanently thereby retaining any
Specialist Status they have and allaying concerns staff have. |
9.
|
|
We
believe these alternative proposals take into account the
specific issues relating to deprivation, transport infrastructure, and
the needs of the local community. |
