|
SAVE OUR SCHOOL Small schools support healthy communities - oppose primary schools closure in Shropshire! |
|
This is the
public report to Cabinet with the Governors' response following:
Primary School Organisation Policy Summary The following is the response to the above report, written by the Governors' of Lydbury North Primary School: Dear Mr Budd,
Lydbury North Primary School Governors wish to raise some concerns regarding your public report to Cabinet (26/09/07) on the Primary School Organisation Plan.
In your background report you explain challenges facing the authority in relation to demographic changes, including falling school numbers. Although neither in your report nor in the draft SOP itself are closures of small schools directly referred to, this is implicit within the proposed policy through the statements that: “schools should be a minimum of 4 classes…except in areas of geographical isolation” and as part of the entitlement criteria, “to plan on efficiently sized 4 or 7 class schools as these are robust…”
You state “Shropshire’s SOPs made it explicit that the authority’s approach to school organisation matters was based fundamentally on the aim of safeguarding and improving educational standards and attainment.”
We agree that “safeguarding” of educational standards and attainment should be at the heart of a Primary SOP, however, we believe that a major priority should be to do so by safeguarding existing, current high standards in ALL Shropshire schools. It would seem that the majority are achieving these standards, as in Sept 2006 Liz Nicholson and Ann Hartley congratulated all Headteachers and chairs of governors on “another successful year” in a letter circular (ref:M78 pmcl). We were all congratulated for “ensuring that Shropshire continues to provide one of the very best educational services in the country. The performance is measured not just by teacher assessment, test and examination results…but in the overall quality of the educational experiences and opportunities provided for our children. All our schools work to achieve the five outcomes…” The report continued, “A recent MORI survey of residents within Shropshire identified that not only are our schools seen by the residents surveyed to be one of the most important services provided by the County Council but also that the satisfaction rate is one of the best in the country.” That makes two references to being the “best in the country”: judgements made of all schools in Shropshire, rural and urban, small and large.
In further support of our view regarding the safeguarding of existing schools, we draw your attention to a previous consultative draft SOP 2003-8 para. 4.5 regarding the continuing growth of surplus primary places. Here, it stated, “the sole, existing major policy that addresses surplus place removal focuses only on the viability of very small village schools. The closure and removal of village schools when numbers become very low does of course have a strongly felt impact on the whole of the particular rural community that is served by that school.” You will recall that, as a result of this concern, the Local Authority proposed and the County Council endorsed and implemented a lowering of the threshold for formal review from 30 on roll down to 20.
The current draft SOP sits in direct contrast to these statements and principles and, it appears, now directly contradicts them. Instead of pledging continuing support for small, village schools the proposal is to make ‘one size fits all’ schools, in which there is a foregone assumption that ‘bigger is better’, or, as you say, “robust.” If parents believed that bigger were indeed better, they would exercise their right to choose by sending their children to the nearest large Primary School. That village schools not only still exist, but thrive and also attract pupils from outside their own catchment area is a testament to their effectiveness and to the qualities and opportunities they offer.
As governors, we feel that if Lydbury North Primary School were to be closed and our pupils allocated to an alternative school (following adoption and implementation of the current draft SOP), few of our parents would regard any alternative school as equalling, let alone bettering our pupils’ current education.
We therefore ask that the Local Authority recommends the County Council consider a revised policy that safeguards existing educational standards delivered by schools of under 4 classes.
Under point 2) ‘Demography’, of your report, you account for the fall in numbers predicted. However, according to government statistics the birth rate (and indeed the fertility rate) has risen steadily for the last 30 years. We are unsure therefore how you can state with any accuracy that the percentage of surplus places will rise to around 20% by 2010/11. Furthermore, “surplus places” are a numerical statistic that can be altered by amending standard numbers.
You also state that, “the number of schools with small or very small numbers of pupils will increase. Some will undoubtedly become educationally unviable.” Please could you explain what criteria are used to determine ‘educationally unviable’ with reference to the size of a school? Is the focus in your statement an economic one rather than an educational one?
Under point 4) ‘Operational Implications’, we have many concerns as to the validity and evidence-based support for your statements.
Firstly, your reference to: “addressing parental perceptions about school viability and performance when faced with larger, multi-year classes” makes an implicit assumption that multi-year classes (in addition to larger classes) are undesirable. What evidence do you have to suggest this?
We are sure you are aware of the compelling, evidence-based studies collated by NASS (National Association of Small Schools) that not only refute any suggestion that multi-age classes are educationally undesirable, but in fact promote them as an ideal model for learning, demonstrating excellent pedagogical theory put into practice. Pupils not only thrive socially in a small school family environment, but often their achievements far exceed the expectations. They mature into healthy, well-rounded, confident individuals who are ready to enter the next stage of their education.
In “Small Schools and a Quality Society,” Mervyn Benford says, “we disown (the) family model of learning by telling children they can now learn only with others of the same age. It is…alien, unlike anything they will experience before school or after it.” Moreover, in the OfSTED report ‘Small Schools: How Well Are They Doing?’ inspection evidence is summarised and confirmed thus: “The traditional reasons for the popularity of successful small schools are well-established features of these schools today. They have a positive ethos with a family atmosphere, close links between staff and parents, an important place in the local community and good standards of behaviour.” The “family atmosphere” quoted is a result of both the size of a school and its mixed age classes.
Secondly, you claim that, “there is additional pressure for staff seeking to meet the breadth of curriculum delivery for a range of year groups within a single class.” Whilst it may, indeed be an “additional pressure”, we both question and refute the subtext here: a) that, therefore, staff may be struggling to or are not adequately meeting the breadth of curriculum delivery and b) that the range of year groups within a single class is undesirable for meeting this breadth. Please could you inform us what evidence you are drawing on to support this statement?
Similarly, you further claim that, “small schools also face challenges in delivering the range of social, sporting, curriculum and extended schools opportunities that are expected in larger schools.” This is a clear implication of “bigger equals better” and is one that we vigorously refute. Small and large schools face these challenges equally. Anecdotal as well as OfSTED inspection evidence details the ways in which these challenges are met in small schools. As your subtext implies that larger schools are better able to meet these challenges, please could you inform us of the evidence to support this?
In the OfSTED Small Schools report it says, “Small schools are able to cope with the demands of teaching the full national curriculum. It is a tribute to the commitment of teachers in small schools…” also, “In terms of overall quality of education, inspection shows that pupils in small schools are not disadvantaged in comparison with those in larger schools because of the size of the school. Small schools are equally capable of providing an effective education and many are among the most effective in the country”. In terms of social opportunities, parents agree with inspection findings of, “very good provision for the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils, especially in church schools.”
Under 6) ‘Draft Policy Proposal’ the six principles are outlined. The first is “to secure high quality…school education…contributing to raising and sustaining high educational standards.” Once again, we would like to point to the existing high quality education occurring in Shropshire’s small schools. We submit the belief that the Local Authority, at the direction of the County Council, should concentrate on maintaining its existing high quality provision. The alternative: the adoption of the existing draft policy, paves the way for decimation of whole village communities through potential closure of their schools - either in the short (2009) or long term.
We urge the LA to reaffirm its belief in the principles underlying paragraph 4.5 in the 2003-8 draft SOP and to work on devising a revised, current draft SOP that does not make reference to minimum class sizes for schools in Shropshire.
Yours sincerely,
The undersigned Governors of Lydbury North Primary School:
Dr Nicholas Howell (Chair) Mrs Nicola Pugh (Vice Chair) Mrs Polly Peters Mrs Ruth Williams Mrs Lucinda Parish Mr Colin Clarke Rev Paul Collins Mr Clive Moore
|