Old Site
Navigation
|
News
Reply by Haywood
Engineering College to the leaked Possible
Position Statement Was it worth it? 08/02/08 Public Demonstration 07/02/08 This letter to the Elected Mayor speaks for itself:
04/02/08 This is an
extract from an e-mail sent to a Trentham parent by Ged Rowney this
morning.
"Following consultation and discussion with Ministers we are preparing a report for the Executive which proposes 13 secondary schools. Our original proposals were to have three schools in the north of the city whereas we are now proposing four. It is not quite as simple as saying that the "fourth school" is Heywood [sic]. Originally, all schools were due to close, and new schools open on the sites of the current Brownhills, James Brindley (a replacement for both James Brindley and St. Margaret Ward) and Acreswood, very close to the current Haywood site". Petitions presented to the Council Council/Serco minutes of meetings held on 29/11/07: Public meeting Governors' meeting Staff meeting Community empowerment obligations More new thoughts posted on the Opinions page 2005 BSF document Acreswood confirmed as possible new site Consultation process illegal? Response of Haywood Engineering College to the consultation: "transforming schools for a brighter future" Visit to Bristol Brunel Academy Parents demonstrate outside Radio Stoke 14/12/07: Parents of children at Stoke's Special Schools demonstrated outside Radio Stoke as Ged Rowney was interviewed inside. Section 52 Education Budget Statement 2007/08 contradicts Serco's numbers Minutes of November 29th Meeting Council U-Turn? 19/12/07 Our understanding of BB98 A Proposal to further transform Secondary Schools in North Stoke Comment in The Times 03/01/08 Serco's population figures disputed again! Serco's failure in Bradford Bradford MDC Scrutiny of Academies 2006 |
 A campaign website that airs the opinions of the community, run by the community for the community.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
This site is not run by anybody with
formal links to Haywood. The school has no control over the content of this site.
Please let us know your views. Contact this site  Save Our School  Next meeting at the school of the HoHH Community Group: Monday 21st January 2008 3.15 p.m. at the School |
Please come to the next Hands off Haywood High Community Group meeting at the School: Monday 21st January 2008, 3.15 p.m.  Other campaign websites:     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. bebo bebo |
Phone:
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Document
leaked to The Sentinel 18/02/08 CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT TRANSFORMING SCHOOLS FOR A
BRIGHTER FUTURE:
The above
document can be found in full here.
With regard to Haywood, this document says: "The roll is expected to fall to 965 by 2014. Despite the offer of a new build on the Bank Top Acreswood site, public consultation showed strong support for the school, and a resistance to agree to any changes. 504 individual responses were received, and a petition of 5,829 names was submitted. The responses argued strongly that the school should be left unchanged. Although the school is popular in the local area, the most recent exam results suggest that the school is just above Government baseline expectations in terms of GCSE attainment, including English and Maths. Additionally the school site does not meet BB98 requirements for more than 750 students, and cannot be expanded. In view of this, it is not proposed to make any major investment at the school, but to refurbish it towards the end of the BSF programme in 2012 or 2013". "The roll is expected to fall to 965 by 2014". They just will not accept that their figures are probably wrong, despite evidence to the contrary. "a resistance to agree to any changes" This is not true. There was a resistance to agree to changing the location of the school, nothing more. "Additionally the school site does not meet BB98 requirements for more than 750 students, and cannot be expanded". The Council obviously has not taken into account the community's view that the land of the former Sneyd Brickworks could be used as playing fields. May we once again reiterate, BB98 is a set of guidelines - not requirements. "In view of this, it is not proposed to make any major investment at the school, but to refurbish it towards the end of the BSF programme in 2012 or 2013". As predicted on our page "Was it worth it" (It is probable that Haywood will be the last school in the north to be refurbished/rebuilt. The programme runs until 2014, so don't expect immediate action). No major investment? Not even the tower? Smacks of revenge for resistance. Whichever branch of the Council drew up this document missed the point of the Hands off Haywood campaign completely. Although they profess to have listened during the "consultation" period, it is now obvious that they did not! e-mails on the subject of the leaked document sent to the City Executive 19/02/08 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Section 52
The statements are published under Section 52 of the
School Standards and Framework Act 1998. The document follows the
form of presentation required by the Education (Budget Statements)
(England) Regulations 2006. The Budget Statement for 2007/08, including pupil
numbers as of January 2007, is to be found on the Council's website. Relevant parts of Tables 2 and 3 can be found here. Both show that the
Pupil Count for Secondary Schools in January 2007 was 14,428. Serco's
Glossy Green Brochure gives the figure as 13,671. Seven hundred and fifty seven pupils
have gone missing! Using the Council's figures for years 1 to 5 in January
2007 (currently Years 2 to 6), the total number of children in Primary
Schools now (excluding Year 1) is 13,184. These are the children who
will be in Years 7 to 11 in 2012. Serco's total is 12,079. One thousand, one hundred and five
pupils will, according to Serco, have disappeared by 2012 Since the Section 52
Statements are used to obtain funding for schools from Central
Government, we can safely assume that they are reasonably accurate and
trustworthy. Serco's projected figures cannot be trusted. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
 In the face of massive opposition to their plans, the City Council has, maybe just this once, put the people first!  Thank you for listening to us. Long may it continue! e-mail from Joan Walley, M.P. Stoke-on-Trent City Council will not
automatically close all its secondary schools as part of its
reorganisation of education. That is good news, especially if it is
true – teachers and ancillary staff will not be made redundant. Each
institution is to be treated on its own merits. That is exactly what we
have been asking for.
The Executive and Serco now have more room for manoeuvre, having dropped their "preferred option". Campaigners may feel encouraged by today's announcement – let us hope that a genuine dialogue will follow. Not all schools are safe – some will close for good. We must continue to campaign for Haywood to stay open on its current site. This is only a tiny, shuffling, step towards creating the secondary education system that the parents, teachers and communities of Stoke-on-Trent want. There are still many long battles to be fought, but, overall, we give the news a very cautious welcome.  SCHOOLS CLOSURE U-TURN
KATHIE MCINNES 09:40 - 19 December 2007 Education managers in Stoke-on-Trent have today made a dramatic U-turn and ditched plans to close all 22 of the city's secondary and special schools. This means the future of the 17 high schools will now be looked at on a case-by-case basis, although some secondaries will still shut due to falling pupil rolls. Today's surprise announcement is also a major victory for families fighting to save the city's five special schools. These schools are now expected to remain open, pending a separate special needs review at a later date. Elected Mayor Mark Meredith today said the changes to the £200 million reorganisation plans showed Stoke-on-Trent City Council and private firm Serco had listened to the public's concerns. They have been contacted by thousands of people, who have signed petitions to block the closure plans. Campaigners have claimed it would destroy communities, demoralise staff, force pupils to travel further to lessons, and wipe out good work in schools. "We told people we would listen and we have done," said Mr Meredith. The council had proposed shutting every secondary school and replacing them with 12 new ones, which would be a mixture of trust schools, academies and faith schools. As the consultation doesn't end until January 11, details are still up for discussion and the final proposals won't be known until February or March. It is still not known how many high schools will now serve the city in the future, which schools will close and which will be rebuilt or could be turned into academies. Mr Meredith joined Stoke-on-Trent's three MPs - Rob Flello, Joan Walley, and Mark Fisher - to unveil the interim findings of the consultation today. It came just days after the MPs met schools minister Jim Knight to call for an alternative set of reorganisation proposals drawn up by headteachers to be adopted. Mr Fisher, who represents Stoke-on-Trent Central, said he "welcomed" the climbdown over closing all schools. He added: "Now each school can be looked at individually and on its own merits." David Dickinson, head of Haywood High, in Burslem, said: "It's fantastic they have dropped the 'nuclear' plan - closing everything down and starting again." Despite today's surprise news, schools have vowed to continue campaigning. Roisin Maguire, head of St Joseph's College, in Trent Vale, said: "I'm delighted they have re-thought the proposals. But until I get that letter, which says my school is safe from closure, I won't believe it." At Trentham High, school governor and campaigner Terry Follows said: "It's a red herring. They are still proposing to shut some schools and make children walk further to school."  Council has school plan rethink
Plans to shut all of Stoke-on-Trent's secondary schools are likely to be dropped, education bosses have said. The city council considered replacing the 17 high schools with 12 "centres of excellence", including four academies. Stoke's elected mayor Mark Meredith said schools would now be looked at on an individual basis, after listening to parents, teachers and MPs. Initial plans to replace five special schools will now also be put on hold and reviewed at a later date. The council launched a consultation on the proposals earlier this year, which will go on until 11 January. 'High-quality education' More than 5,000 people have so far made their views known on the plans. Mr Meredith said: "I'm delighted that we now have a way forward. We told people we would listen and we have done. "I would like to reassure teachers, pupils and parents once again that what we want is to provide the very best for the children of our city." Last week, about 30 parents of children at the city's special schools protested outside BBC Radio Stoke when the city council's education director Ged Rowney appeared on a programme there. Stoke Central MP Mark Fisher said: "I welcome this decision. "Now each school can be looked at individually and on its merits, and our excellent special schools can continue to provide the high-quality education that parents and pupils so value."Round II - the
battle to keep Haywood open on its existing site - begins now!
If any members of Serco
happen to have been in Room 1 at Haywood, they would have seen the
following anonymous quotation printed on the wall:
"Failure
is only the opportunity to begin again, this time more wisely"
They would be wise indeed to follow this advice.  Our mole at the Press Conference wrote this: The Press Conference was held with the three MPs and Mark Meredith. Ged Rowney answered a few questions too. Nothing solid was announced and the Acreswood plan has not been ruled out. Essentially the consultation goes on until 11th January, but they are trying to take the heat out of the closure campaigns by saying they will work with all the Schools, Heads and Governors to come up with the best plans for the schools. But whether this will change the outcomes in the end is not yet definite. Good news for the Special Schools, who are definitely out of the process for now. This is a unambiguous indication that the campaigns were heard loud and clear in Parliament. The Council and Serco will have to come up with outcomes that have community engagement because they now know that the communities are media-savvy and effective at making their voices heard nationally as well as locally. That is a real victory for Hands off Haywood as the campaign that led the way. What is most positive, is that this does not need to be a fight anymore – it is a chance to really make sure everything positive and convincing is put forward (again and again if necessary) and built in to the options. The time to judge will be after 11th January when the "final" option is put together. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
From The Times Comment  January 3, 2008
Big Issue
The trend towards larger secondary schools
should be recognised and reversed
The argument over the optimal size of the classes in which children are taught has raged on for decades. Many parents have voted with their feet (or chequebooks) on this issue. The question of overall school size, by contrast, has not been addressed with anything like the same intensity. But steadily and with no public discussion the size of the typical secondary school has increased not only since the present Government came to office but also in the last years of its predecessor. More than two million 11 to 18-year-olds are educated in schools with more than 1,000 fellow students. Nearly 500,000 have in excess of 1,500 other young people to keep them company. Almost 50,000 have 500-plus more. Figures highlighted by the Conservatives today reveal a stark correlation between a school's size and the challenge of keeping discipline within its corridors. Small is not automatically beautiful nor is big consistently bad. Some schools with 1,500 or more children have reached that capacity in response to parental demand and are consistently well managed. There are also small secondary schools that are comparatively tiny not out of a deep desire to be intimate places but because few parents wish to send their offspring to them. Sweeping generalisations must thus be avoided. Yet, despite this, there is a strong body of evidence that schools are becoming larger for reasons of bureaucratic convenience, not the better interests of children. A sharp fall in the birthrate in the early 1990s has now fed its way through to secondary education. Overall numbers are tumbling and this has encouraged local authorities to merge schools as their populations decline, forming ever larger establishments as a consequence. The alleged economies of scale that this generates makes for savings in council budgets. This tendency has been stoked by the proliferation of subjects offered at GCSE and A level. That range requires a vast number of potential “customers” for the likes of media studies to make financial sense. Ministers could veto such mergers but it would be a brave one who did so habitually. As a result, without anybody in Whitehall really endorsing this initiative, the average size of secondary schools in England has kept rising. This is a pattern that should be recognised and reversed. Above a tally of about 1,200 pupils, schools risk becoming remote institutions. Students in very big schools can have as many as 15 different teachers, which makes it difficult for any particular one of them to assume responsibility for their development. It would take a talented head teacher simply to know the names of such a vast collection of children, never mind their individual circumstances. It should be no shock that it is harder to control a large crowd than a small one. American cities such as New York, Chicago and Philadelphia, which created mega-schools, have opted to reverse course and are seeking to break them up by putting more than one school on the same site. This is worthy of emulation. The trend towards artificially enlarged organisations has not been a happy one, whether it be mega-mergers (AOL and Time Warner) or giant conurbations (Wuhan in China is not offering Paradise any competition). There should be an assumption of a logical ceiling for pupil numbers in education too. Whatever claims are made for economies of scale, it is the law of diminishing returns that is operating. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following information has been available to Serco since September last year. They made no attempt to revise their estimates of population despite new figures from the Office of National Statistics. The summary shown below points to:
Since Serco's plan of action is concerned with the short to medium term (i.e. up to about fifteen years) and mentions nothing about the long term (over fifteen years), a conclusion can be reached that they are not interested in anything that contradicts their figures. Excerpt from: Population Change and Migration -
Stoke on-Trent 2001-06 (Stoke-on-Trent City
Council, September 2007)
Summary The following points relate to the chief findings from the revised population and migration data for Stoke-on-Trent. The city’s population is not declining at the much-publicised rate of 1,000 persons per year – but has effectively been stable since the 2001 Census. • Revised 2006 mid-year estimates for Stoke-on-Trent put the population at 239,700 only 900 less than the 2001 Census figure of 240,636. • The city is one of only 28 local authority areas to have experienced a population decline in the 2001-06 period. International migration to the city – particularly in the period since 2004 - has effectively balanced the continued lose of population to neighbouring districts. • While National Health Service patient registration data indicates that the city continues to suffer from the net out-migration (*) of persons to other parts of England and particularly neighbouring districts – this loss has been countered by an influx of international migrants to the city particularly in the period after since 2004. (*) – While the average loss for the 1999-2006 period was c.1,000 persons per year – recent data suggests that this figure reduced to only 400 in 2006. The age profile of the city’s population matches very closely that of England & Wales as a whole • The net impact of in-migration of predominantly young adults under the age of 25, and the continued out-migration of those over this age - is that the city’s population is not ageing at the rate originally anticipated. The Future If international migration to the city continues – and the net loss of population to surrounding boroughs continues to decrease – the city’s population is likely to grow, albeit on a small scale, for the first time since the 1920’s. However, as noted with past waves of migrants to both the city and the rest of the UK, the current volumes are not likely to be sustained – pointing to a situation of population stability at best, and a likely return to population decline in the longer term. The full document can be seen here. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Following Bradford LEA’s critical OfSTED inspection of 2000, the City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council decided to establish a strategic partnership for the provision of school-focused educational services (education support services). This involved the procurement of a direct service provider who would work in partnership with and under contract to the Council. The contract was awarded to Serco which took up its responsibilities in the contract under the name of Education Bradford in July 2001. It was a ten year contract and the largest of its type in Europe (it involved the TUPE transfer of 1172 members of staff and had a full contract life value of £360 million). Incidentally, Bradford Council have (wisely, it seems) appointed another body to oversee the Building Schools for the Future programmme, who are not considering a mass destruction of schools, but are looking to invest resources into the management and infrastructure of existing schools (Now, that sounds like a good idea!). Education Bradford started operating in 2001 when central educational staff and assets transferred to Serco. Bradford schools are now subjest to an OfSTED Annual Performance Assessment. The latest, published on 26 November 2007, indicates that even after six years, Serco is failing to deliver, especially at the Foundation Stage and at Key Stage 1, and is still below national averages at all other measurable points. Since Bradford has many of the same socio-economic issues and problems as Stoke-on-Trent (deprivation, unemployment, racial issues), this is extremely worrying. Source: (http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/portal/site/Internet/menuitem.e741949183f04e23b218d71008c08a0c/?authorityID=380) Educational achievement must have its roots in early-years education. Young people who have been properly taught Maths and English at a very early stage will have a better chance of success than those who have not. Maybe this failing is due to Goverment policy on early-years learning, or maybe it is due to Serco focusing, as it seems to be in Stoke-on-Trent, solely on Secondary education. Serco's contract with Bradford is an "incentivised" contract, not a penalty contract - prompting an accusation from unions that it features a carrot but no stick. However, the contract targets are consistently not met. To trigger incentive payments of between £1 million and £2 million a year, Serco supposedly has to achieve a range of stringent targets covering children's exam results, truancy, exclusions and the performance of under-achieving groups like boys, African-Caribbean, Bangladeshi and Pakistani youngsters. However, these targets have been lowered at least twice. Education Bradford’s performance for strategic incentive targets is calculated against a group of twelve comparator authorities – Derby, Birmingham, Blackburn with Darwen, Kirklees, Luton, Middlesborough, Nottingham, Oldham, Peterborough, Rochdale, Stoke-on-Trent and Waltham Forest. Where applicable, the aim is to be in the top three performing authorities for each target. The timescale for achievement of this aim was calculated for each individual target and based on the gap between Bradford’s performance in 2004 and that of the 3rd best (upper quartile) performing authority.The following images are taken from the Report of the Head of Procurement to the meeting of the Young People and Education Improvement Committee held on the 28th March 2007 (for the school year 2005/06). The unment contract targets have been highlighted in blue. They can be seen in their original context here.  Total failure at Key Stage 1.  Total failure at Key Stage 2.  Total failure at Key Stage 3. Bradford remained in the worst 20 education authorities in the country for the performance of 14-year-olds, ranked 132 out of 148.  Some small success at Key
Stage 4, but six of the district's secondary schools were named among
the bottom 200 in the nation.
 Not much good with underachieving groups.  Failure again, despite the fact that Serco's targets have twice been made easier with respect to the level of performance to which they are expected to bring Bradford's schools. Bradford was in the bottom 20 education authorities in the country for test and exam results sat by 11, 14 and 16-year-olds in 2005/06. Source: http://archive.ilkleygazette.co.uk/2006/2/4/184784.html Interestingly, as reported in the Bradford Telegraph and Argus on 4th February 2006, the Audit Commission announced that Education Bradford had, by then, spent £8.5 million more than it had received in income since it took over in 2001. "Labour councillors have called for a review of the Serco contract after the news that Education Bradford is looking to make savings. Coun Ralph Berry, Labour's education spokesman, said: "When the contract was signed we were assured Serco's sums added up but now we are being held to ransom. Put bluntly, we either stump up more cash or lose services to schools. "I believe Serco intended the contract to be a loss-leader that helped it break into the education market. It is a gamble that has backfired spectacularly and the Council is being asked to pick up the pieces and to divert resources away from schools into a plan to wipe out Serco losses." Source: http://archive.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/2006/2/4/184767.html A follow-up to this story, in the Wharfedale and Airedale Observer dated 4th March 2006, can be found here: http://archive.wharfedaleobserver.co.uk/2006/3/4/185657.html Interesting! Implications for Stoke? It seems that Serco has not learnt any lessons from its experiences in Bradford. To quote Mike Tomlinson, the former chief inspector of schools (Guardian Unlimited, Monday November 10, 2003): "I think we have to remember that at the time that Serco were invited to take this contract, the situation in Bradford was itself pretty dire then. So they didn't inherit a very good situation. But nevertheless what is essential is that you work very closely with headteachers and others to ensure that the service that you provide meets their needs" (our emphasis). Maybe this needs repeating: "what is essential is that you work very closely with headteachers and others to ensure that the service that you provide meets their needs". Serco needs to learn it this time! During our research, we came upon this little comment in the Telegraph & Argus: "I think Education Bradford are leaning heavily on the T&A at the moment. Their stories seem to want to put a good spin on Serco and anything slagging Serco off quickly disappears" Cynical, Bradford. Hmmm. "Shades of one particular department at Stoke-on-Trent City Council" Right to be Cynical, Stoke. Based on the depressing set of results seen above, taken from a local authority that is very similar to Stoke, and with an education department run by the same private company as in Stoke, one cannot but help to wonder why Serco was given the contract for running education in Stoke. They have not achieved good enough results in Bradford in six years. Why should anyone think that they can do anything for Stoke? If Bradford has these kinds of results after years of Serco rule, what hope is there for Stoke? A Teacher's report might read something like this: Name: Serco. Overall grade for education provision: f (fail) Comment: Needs to listen, and learn from previous mistakes! |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Consultation process flawed, possibly illegal.
David
Dickinson
HeadteacherSee also Department for Children, Schools and Families rules applying to Local Authorities for Closing Schools or extracts here. The response document refers to another concerning School Specifications. This can be found here. This legal opinion backs up what this site has been saying from the beginning: It seems that we will have to go through the whole process again. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
e-mail confirmation
by the Elected Mayor of the proposed use of Acreswood and not Bank Top. The following was received
by one of our campaigning supporters:
(Margaret Barber) : Dear Mr , Thank you for contacting my office, and for sending me a copy of your letter to the Minister. Whilst I will not reply in detail to the points you raise with the Minister, I would point out that the current site of Haywood Engineering College does not meet the Government's minimum standards. If these were to be applied (as they would be were we to seek to invest BSF money) the school could only admit about 750 students. The proposed move to Acreswood offers us an opportunity to bring the school site up to standard as well as providing a new, state of the art school. Under the current regulations, we will be expected to contribute at least 50% of any income from the sale of school sites into the overall budget for the new schools. Additionally, the regulations governing the disposal of school sites means that the majority of playing fields, including those at Heywood [sic], are likely to remain public open space. Yours sincerely Mark Meredith This is a little disingenuous: 1) The "Government's minimum standards" (in BB98) are guidelines only - not statutory requirements. 2) BB98 allows for a "confined site" that does not have to reach the suggested size. 3) "the majority of playing fields ... are likely to remain ...". This does not say that they will remain as public open space. This sounds as though the proposed move to Acreswood will happen come what may, despite massive public opposition. So:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
| From Stoke-on-Trent City Council, 2005: Building Schools
for the(ir) Future
The Educational Vision extract from the May 2005 Strategic Business Case (full document here)
As already explained in section 1.2, we have decided provisionally to retain all our current secondary schools. We are confident of their sustainability from our roll projections (and our good track record of precision and accuracy in forecasting rolls). The reasons for retaining the present shape of the system are as follows.
So, what has changed in thirty months? The only answer that can possibly be given is Serco. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Haywood Hands Off Haywood - In recent informal proposals it has been suggested that Haywood High School and Engineering College will close. The Parents / Teachers / Friends Association is totally opposed to this for the following reasons: this is a caring school with an excellent ethos; it is over subscribed because people choose this school; it will leave a gaping hole in the community; Ofsted judged the school to be good with outstanding features. 5,829 signatories St. Joseph's We believe there is no just or educational reason for tampering with St Joseph's College. It is one of the top 200 schools in the country, heavily oversubscribed and providing an excellent, all round education to its students. The closure of St Joseph's College would not improve Stoke-on-Trent's poor educational performance. Neither the Council nor Serco have produced any evidence to demonstrate that closure of the school will in any way contribute to the raising of standards in the city. We are asking for your support in ensuring that St Joseph's College is left as it is. c. 34,000 signatories The "favoured" proposal to close St Joseph's College is wrong and unjust and should not go ahead. 52 signatories Trentham Trentham High School, a transforming school in the South of Stoke-on-Trent is under threat of closure as part of the re-organisation of secondary in Stoke. If the closure goes ahead, the community will lose its local school and be offered a place at a new Academy in a neighbouring area. Parents have worked hard to ensure that the difficulties that Trentham has experienced in recent years are addressed. On the brink of achieving success, they are now about to lose everything they have fought for: transforming academic achievement, outstanding sporting facilities and success, a school at the heart of its community. Parents are adamant that the local authority are not taking their views and their needs into account. We want to retain Trentham High School. 4,031 signatories Heathfield It is in the best interests of the children at Heathfield to continue to be educated at the school. Students at Heathfield are nurtured, safe and have equal opportunities, including the opportunity for inclusion with mainstream children. We strongly object to the Council's proposals as delivered at the recent public meeting held at the school and want the school to remain open. 935 signatories Other / non-specific Supporting Headteachers' and MPs' Re-organisation proposals and comments on Transforming Schools Proposals. 145 signatories The Muslim Community REJECTS SERCO's proposal for a new Academy on the 'Gas Works Site. We support a new build on, or near to, the Box Lane site. 139 signatories |
|||||||||||||||||||||
outside the town hall
Thursday February 7th 2008
Click on the thumbnail to see Very large pictures!
These pictures are copyright free
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Parents and Pupils from five schools,
Haywood, Trentham, Longton, Mitchell and Berry Hill, demonstrated
noisily outside
the Council chambers on Thursday 7th February. A petition was read out
in the chambers.
Cllr. Roger Ibbs tried to address the crowd, saying that he was opposed to the closure of Trentham. He was then mercilessly heckled by the Trentham community. He countered by saying "You're doing yourselves and your cause a discredit".
So much for listening to the people.
Cllr. Roger Ibbs tried to address the crowd, saying that he was opposed to the closure of Trentham. He was then mercilessly heckled by the Trentham community. He countered by saying "You're doing yourselves and your cause a discredit".
So much for listening to the people.