Information that is
not longer new,
but is still relevant

There are many other "Hands off Haywood" sites appearing, for instance on YouTube or Bebo.
We need to link to them from here.
Please e-mail your link.

The five key points that the Community has presented to the City Executive and Serco

Serco's Official Consultation Evening
29th November 2007
Minutes here

Photos of 15th November meeting here

Excellence in Education for Stoke-on-Trent
An educationalists' viewpoint
Stoke-on-Trent Head Teachers' Proposals
supported by
Joan Walley, M.P., Stoke North
Mark Fisher, M.P., Stoke Central
Rob Flello, M.P., Stoke South

"Could" is the operative word

Two questions

Seasons Greetings to Serco

All about Serco - read and weep!

BSF Project Director job ad

 
Schools question rips apart Stoke Labour Party?

Serco's "Transforming Schools" contains errors!

The CLC has not been forgotten

Does the Executive really not know anything?

"Consultation events" deemed farcical by
members of the community
The "confidential" proposals 07/11/07

Letter to all Headteachers 31/10/07

Bank Top

A parent's plea to Ged Rowney 20/10/07

Future of Haywood already decided? (Editorial)

Ged Rowney talks to the School Council

The City Council's vision

Elected Mayor's Briefing Note

Public Demonstration 20/09/07

Response from Haywood Engineering College to Extract from Draft Re-organisation Consultation Paper - 8 October 2007

The City Council Chief Executive Officer
The Director of Children's and Young People's Services
The Portfolio Holder for Children's Services
The Chair, Children's Services Scrutiny Committee
The community.

Attended:
The Member of Parliament for Stoke North
The Elected Mayor of Stoke-on-Trent

11 December 2007

Education officials today assured families and schools they have been listening to their views and could take some of their alternative ideas on board. The comments came after it emerged 5,000 people have contacted Stoke-on-Trent City Council as part of the huge consultation on reorganising secondary and special schools. About £200 million has been earmarked for building new schools.

Now, thousands of extra booklets and newsletters are being delivered to homes and businesses across the city to encourage more feedback before the January 11 closing date.

In the New Year, the team behind the consultation will draw up a report, which will be considered by elected mayor Mark Meredith and council chief executive Steve Robinson.

Adrian Williams, the city's 'Building Schools for the Future' adviser, said: "There has been overwhelming support for the level of investment to be made in the schools and a widespread acceptance that things must change. The discussion has been on how the transformation is achieved.

"Some ideas put forward are very sensible and could easily be adopted."

He said the council's executive could implement the current proposals in full, reject them entirely or make some changes based on public feedback.

"Could" is the operative word here.

• Education officials, i.e. Serco, "could take some of their ideas on board",
• "Some ideas ... could be adopted"
• The Executive "could make some changes based on public feedback".

What are the odds that they will? Long, to say the least, is our guess, based on previous performance.

Mr Williams says "The discussion has been on how the transformation is achieved". What discussion? It all started with Serco lecturing everyone on what they, Serco, were going to do. They were then ambushed by people that they had never even considered - the general public! Good Grief, the peasants are revolting!

The Executive and Serco have somehow been surprised by the strength of public opinion against the proposals. Why? Because there was absolutely no meaningful consultation before their proposals were published.

A far more positive message from Serco would have been "We will take some of their ideas on board", "Some ideas put forward are very sensible and would be easy to adopt", and "Some changes based on public feedback will be made". Maybe Mr Dan Barton, the City's new £75,000 p.a. Spin Doctor, could have advised them to be slightly more enthusiastic about the public's views.

Have the Executive and Serco yet learned that development cannot happen without grassroots support? We hope so, but, again judging by previous experience, we still remain doubtful.

26th October 2007

We have a transcript of the meeting between Ged Rowney, Director of Young Peoples' Services in Stoke-on-Trent, and the Haywood Student Council which took place on the 15th October 2007.

Frankly this document (shown in full above), although paraphrased, makes worrying reading. The tone of the meeting seems to suggest that it has been decided that Haywood will move to a new site, and that the feelings of the community count for nothing. But, one must suppose that that is the norm for such a secretive, undemocratic organisation as Stoke-on-Trent City Council.

Probably the most telling exchange between the two parties went something like this:
Ged Rowney: "BSF is exciting; wouldn’t your pupils and staff like a brand new school?"
School Council: "No, we are the only school fighting closure; we would like to update the current school on the current site. We had started to do that with BSF money, but had to stop".
Ged Rowney: "Why wouldn’t it be better to have a new school?"
School Council: "We don’t want to lose our identity; we are one of a few schools that get involved with everything".
Ged Rowney: Split schools generally don’t work, better everything is on one site.
School Council: We use Port Vale and Dimensions, which from the school boundary is only approximately 200m, and, as you said earlier, the new possible site is only 200m away, so travel isn’t an issue – nor is it then for the P.E. facilities!

Mr Rowney, it may behove you to remember your bible, specifically Psalms 8 v.2 (King James Version):

What their elders seem to be saying is that it has been decided that the current Haywood site will close, and the school will move to "Bank Top" ("Currently thinking of Bank Top for new site" and "Bank Top is a proposed new site for Haywood"). This has either been thought out very carefully indeed, or not thought out at all. We suspect the former, but hope for the latter.

Is "Bank Top" the only proposed new site? Probably not - the use of the word "a" seems to answer this. As for the care taken in choosing this site, if anybody cared to look at (what we think Serco is referring to as) "Bank Top", they would find that it is precipitous. Such a site would need to be levelled, and should be left for three years to settle - which would take it outside the timeframe for school rebuilding. Then, due to previous mining activity, it would have to have piles driven to provide stability for building. Also, methane is being vented on the site from a former landfill. So, when Serco "suddenly" discovers that the costs of building a new school at "Bank Top" site are prohibitive, will they decide to relocate Haywood to a less expensive site – possibly somewhere close to the D-road as originally planned? "Bank Top" is probably not a suitable site for a school, but will Serco admit this? The "Bank Top" proposal has to be a red herring.

In the course of wondering about the meaning of "Bank Top", "Bank Top Burslem" was Googled. On www.thepotteries.org, the following description was found:

• Bank Top is located on a narrow strip alongside High Lane.
• Greenbank Road, at one end of Bank Top, runs from High Lane to Tunstall and at the other end of Bank Top, Hamil Road runs down to Burslem.
• Bank Top sits on the ridge of a hill - to the west the land falls away very steeply to the town of Tunstall and to the east to Bradeley. Other districts around Bank Top are Stanfield, and Hamil to the west; Chell and Fegg Hayes are to the north.

So, Bank Top is situated on a narrow strip alongside High Lane, between Hamil Road and Greenbank Road. Yes - that puts the Haywood site right in, or on, Bank Top. If Serco's team was from the area, they might have been able to be a teeny bit more precise about "Bank Top". Or maybe they're just having a laugh at our expense? We shall see.

Mr Rowney says that the Government has said no to seventeen schools and that we need twelve quality schools. The need for quality schools is irrefutable. Let us, for the sake of argument, take the seventeen to twelve reduction as non-negotiable. Nowhere has the Government stated that schools need to be moved to new sites. Elsewhere in the meeting, Mr Rowney said that the Govenment would say that the current ground area of Haywood would be "tight". To any normal English speaker, this should mean that there is sufficient, but not excessive, room to have a school on the existing Haywood site. This nullifies Serco's argument that the site is too small. Or does tight in Sercospeak mean insufficient?

We dispute the constant assertion by Serco that the population is falling. It may be falling within the city as a whole, but, in this area, it is not. We would like to know who has carried out the quoted demographic projections. We would also like to point out that a certain Primary School within the City was recently rebuilt to a size based on demographic projections. These projections have been proved to be utterly false, and now there is overcrowding in a new school. In case the demographers had not noticed, there is a huge regeneration project going on in this area - mostly involving building houses. And, whether they like it or not, with houses come children. As was pointed out by the School Council, "If the population is falling, and new houses are built on this site, there will be no one to fill them!". To which there was a telling reply: "Re-gen is looking at this, and yes the population has dropped, so the site might consist of houses and green space". Also an earlier reply contained the words "It may be used for houses".

So, it has been decided that Haywood will be demolished and the site will be used for housing!


In a reply to a question about two-storied buildings in schools, Mr Rowney said "We are aware of the plans to build the Haywood Tower; this may not be acceptable to the locals, and the land may not be right". Has it occurred to him that building houses on the Haywood site "may not be acceptable to the locals", or that building a school on the Bank Top site "may not be acceptable to the locals and the land may not be right"? Have the residents around Bank Top been consulted as to whether they want a school in their backyard? The answer to both questions is probably not.

One answer that raised eyebrows was "At a meeting with Head teachers, they asked for all schools to close". Our information, from separate, geographically distinct sources, suggests that this was far from unanimous, but, as we were not present at the meeting, we cannot confirm the veracity of this claim.

One rather disingenuous answer was: "New schools also create new jobs for different trades, builders etc." Yes, but so does upgrading existing schools. Anyway, it is likely that contractors from outside Stoke-on-Trent (probably, knowing Stoke-on-Trent CC, a UK-based company, with head office in Birmingham, and regional offices responsible for London and the South East, the South West, the Midlands, Yorkshire, and the North, who inexplicably also have an office on Festival Park) would be used, so the contribution to the local economy would be negligible.

To quote from Mr Rowney: "If parents decide that a school is a good school, they will get them [their children] there no matter what".

Stoke-on-Trent has been offered a once in a lifetime opportunity to renew or refurbish secondary schools, special schools and pupil referral units to ensure that all young people in the City have access to the very best education, the most modern equipment and to be taught in buildings that excite and inspire. However, the City is changing; the number of secondary aged pupils is falling. Some areas of the City that once had lots of young people now have fewer and other areas of the City are due to have new homes built. To make sure that we have the right size schools in the right places, we have looked again at the number and location of all secondary schools. Some changes are needed. This document contains our initial proposals for discussion. We welcome any comments or feedback. We will consider all views before starting formal consultation in October.

What are we trying to achieve?

What are we trying to avoid?

Creating a two-tier system, where some schools are perceived as being better than others by virtue of their name, facilities or governance.

Schools that are vulnerable to small changes in demography or popularity.

Planning for the Future

Predicting future schools' rolls is a difficult task. Although there is very accurate data about the number of births in a given area, it is more difficult to gauge other factors - house building, immigration, emigration and public perception - all of which can affect a school roll for the better in a short space of time. Current predictions indicate that the total number of young people of secondary age will fall to about 11,800 in 2014, Nationally, the average number of children per family reached its lowest point since records began in 2002-04, with an average family size of 1.6. However, in 2006/07 this had risen to 1.8 children. Is this a trend or just a blip?

We have therefore assumed that 11,800 is the minimum number we need to plan for, and our proposals create more spaces than this. The DfES suggest that a 5%-10% leeway is appropriate; we are likely be at the upper end of this range.

School Size

When planning school places, a balance needs to be struck between creating schools of sufficient size to be robust and viable, yet local enough to serve their communities. In rural areas, this might mean having more small schools, whereas in more urban areas, schools can be larger but still accessible to the majority of students and their families. [Accessible how? By walking? By car? By bus?]

The evidence [what evidence?] suggests that, although there is no direct correlation between the size of a school and its performance, schools with 900 or more students are best able to deliver a broad curriculum. Since 1985, the DfES have recommended that 11-16 secondary schools have a minimum of 900 places. This view was supported by research carried out by National Foundation for Educational Research in 2002.
Our proposals create schools, where possible, of between 900 and 1,350 places. [i.e. with a higher pupil to teacher ratio. Surely smaller schools with smaller class sizes have a better sense of identity and consequently do better?]

How many Schools?

We believe that a city the size of Stoke-on-Trent, with a secondary school population of about 12,000, needs 12 schools. Some of these schools will have 6 forms of entry (180 pupils in a year group), some will have 8 forms of entry (240 in a year group) and one or two may be as large as 1350 students (9 forms of entry). This will give schools some spare places to allow for growth, and allow for parents to have a choice of which school they would like their child to attend.

Post 16

From 2010, the government expects all young people to be involved in education or training up to the age of 18. We want to offer more post 16 opportunities, planned and delivered principally by existing providers. We are looking to increase the range of places where we can offer new courses, for example, by asking one of the colleges to deliver more courses in local communities.

A Fresh Start

School reorganisation is seldom popular [especially if the needs and the wants of the local community are not taken into account]. We know that people feel very attached to their local schools and that [imposed] change can be seen as a threat. However, the changes we are proposing will ensure that all schools are given a fresh start and an opportunity to provide the very best education possible for our children. We are anxious to ensure that the reorganisation is fair to everyone [except for the people of Burslem, but that is totally normal for the City Council], that there are no "winners" or "losers". In order to achieve this, we are proposing to close all the schools for which we have responsibility and to open 12 schools, with three co-located special schools and one separate special school. We have spoken with the Headteachers and Chairs of Governors of all schools, most of whom agree that this is the fairest way forward, and the one most likely to ensure the future success of all schools. The Archdiocese of Birmingham will be discussing the future of the three Catholic Aided Schools with the Heads and Governors over the next few weeks.

Where will the Schools be?

In selecting locations for the 12 schools [So, it is already decided!! The unconsulted taxpayers of the City have absolutely no say in the future of their children's education], we have tried to find sites that serve communities throughout the City, with travel distances of no more than two miles where possible [why increase it from a few hundred yards?]. In some cases, the schools will use existing sites, in other cases we are seeking to build new schools on completely new sites.

Options

Special Schools

Our proposal is to create three new special schools, co-located with mainstream secondary schools, in sites in the northern, central and southern parts of the City. In addition, one new school would be created for young people with behavioural emotional, behavioural and social difficulties on a stand alone site yet to be decided.


The Northern Area
There are currently four schools serving this area. In 7 years time, it is estimated that places will be needed for about 3,400 young people. There is an area of regeneration in the area currently served by Brownhills High School [actually quite a lot of the regeneration is happening in the catchment area of Haywood High, viz. in Burslem, but Boslemites are used to being ignored]. Our proposal is therefore to have 3 schools, two of 1200, one of about 1000. Reorganisation in the northern area is not straightforward and a decision will need to be made as to which of the existing sites should continue to be used. Site appraisals are currently being carried out [by whom?] to see which of the existing sites offer greatest opportunity.

James Brindley Site:
Although the site is currently too small for a 1200 place school, it has potential to be expanded, either by using the redundant cricket pitch and/or developing on the hospital site nearby. This is currently the preferred site for co-located a special school. If this site were used, a new school building would be needed as the current building has reached the end of its life.

St Margaret Ward VA Site:
This site is currently not quite large enough for 1000 students, but neighbouring land is potentially available. It is unlikely that, even with more land, the site would meet the requirements for more than 1000 students. If this site were used, some refurbishment would be required.

Haywood Site:
Although the school currently has about 1000 students on roll, under current regulations, the site is only large enough to house a school of about 650 students [if, under current regulations, the site is only large enough to house a school of about 650 students, why are there nearly 1100 students currently enrolled? Bit of a disingenuous argument!]. There are no obvious ways of expanding the school grounds. If this site were used, remodelling of the existing buildings would be required [so, remodel them!].

Brownhills Site:
Currently this site is not large enough to house a school of 1200, but the Council owns an adjacent site, which would allow a school of this size to be located there. An area of regeneration is planned for the surrounding area of this school. If this site were used, a new school building would be required.


Eastern Area
Our proposals make several significant changes to school places in this area. Currently, six schools serve the area, but future projections suggest that there will only be about 4,000 young people living in the area.

Holden Lane Site:
This site appears to be of the right size, in the right location, although there may possibly be some reconfiguration of the primary catchment areas. If this site were used, the school building would need some refurbishment.

Birches Head Site:
This school is currently being remodelled to provide 750 places, although the site could house many more than this. Consideration will be given to reconfiguring primary catchment areas to increase the number on roll to nearer to 900. This site is the preferred location for a co-located special school.

Mitchell Site:
It is proposed not to use this site.

Berry Hill Site:
It is proposed not to use this site.

New School "Park Hall":
A new 1200 place school is proposed to serve the central/southern part of the east side of the City. Three potential sites have been identified near to Dividy Road, and a feasibility study is being carried out. The current Berry Hill/Mitchell catchment areas would be redistributed between Birches Head and this new school.

Longton Site:
It is proposed not to use this site for a school, although consideration is being given to other uses, for example, post 16 provision.

Sandon Site:
Although currently being built for a student population of 750, the school could actually accommodate 900. It is proposed that this site be used and a feasibility study will be carried out, to see what adaptations will be needed for it to provide 900 places.

Edensor Site:
It is proposed not to use this site. The catchment areas will be reconfigured so that the Bambury Street area will be associated with the new School mentioned above.

St Thomas More VA Site:
Discussions are taking place with the Archdiocese to examine the possibility of St Thomas More having additional places which will be offered to non-Catholics living in the locality. If this occurred, remodelling and extensions would be needed.

Blurton & Trentham Sites:
Future projections suggest that only one school is needed in place of both current schools. Either site could be used, as could a new site which is potentially available close to the current Trentham site. The Blurton site probably has greater potential for co-location of a special school and other extended school/community use. Whichever site is eventually selected, it is likely that a completely new building will be required.


Western Area
The western side of the City is unusual in that two of the three schools currently serving the area are faith school that attract students from well outside the area.

St Joseph's Site:
The current school is small, both in terms of numbers and site. The Archdiocese is discussing with the Christian Brothers the best way of securing the future for St Josephs School.

Thistley Hough Site:
It is proposed to extend the school site by making use of surrounding Council owned land and to expand the number on roll to at least 900. The current school building would be demolished and a new school built.

St Peter's Site:
The Diocese and Governors of St Peters have stated their ambition to become an Academy and to create post 16 provision, planned and delivered in cooperation with other post 16 providers. In order to facilitate this, it is proposed to move the school to a new site, nearer to the City Centre. It is proposed that St Peters also serve the new development known as Joiner's Square.

Who we consulted

Proposals of this nature are bound to be controversial [really?] and we recognise that different individuals and groups will have different opinions. In developing our proposals, we have spoken with all secondary head teachers, plus one or more governors from each school [but not one single private citizen of Stoke?]. At a local level, we have spoken with elected members, the Learning and Skills Council, the Principals of both Stoke-on-Trent College of Further Education and Stoke-on-Trent 6th Form College. At a regional and national level we have spoken with the Government Office for the West Midlands, the Diocesan Education Officers for both the Church of England and the Catholic Church, the DfES (now the DfSCF), The Office of the School Commissioner and Partnerships For Schools [but the opinion of the electorate was not canvassed!!!].


Work still to be done

At this stage there are many questions still to be answered. Further discussions will be needed about governance arrangements for all schools, including Trusts and Academies. We have yet to develop proposals for extended schools and community use of schools, and further work will be needed to realign the catchment areas of primary schools to the new school locations. We will be holding extensive consultations with parents, staff and the trades unions [What about the community at large? Why not pupils?]. Once we get on to designing buildings, we will consult with children and young people, as well as school staff and other users [not the community?].

Finally, we recognise that [imposed, top-down, unconsultative] change can often feel threatening and unsettling. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that young people [what about the community??] stay at the heart of this process. We will guard their education and ensure they do not suffer during the re-organisation process.

If you would like to comment on any of the proposals contained in this document, please email us at bsfenquiries@stoke.gov.uk

Consultation?

Here are some definitions of consultation:

What we heard about Serco's consultation meetings:

Judging by the above, and referring to the definitions of consultation, it is clear that what Serco has done bears no relationship to true consultation.

We think that the following quotes fit Serco's current consultation process perfectly: