On page 15 the consultation document states:
‘The governing body and headteacher of Tomlinscote would run the expanded school; all staff from the existing Tomlinscote would continue in their posts; the ethos, identity and name of the school would remain’
The viability of the proposal depends on the statement above being valid and true. The proposal needs to explain, which it does not, how the governing body and the new Executive Head teacher would run the school and how they can guarantee that all Tomlinscote staff would remain in their positions as staff have indicated that they are not in favour of this expansion and could well decide to leave if it were to go ahead. The proposal needs to tell us how it is going to ensure its statement above will happen and how they can promise this. It completely fails to do so.
On school ethos, the recent OFSTED says ‘The impact of specialist status permeates the school’s whole existence, philosophy and ethos.’ Yet there is not a single statement in the whole consultation document which mentions specialism, let alone explains how it could be retained through the transition to a split site school.
In a governor’s meeting on March 29th 2010 where the governors discussed a proposal from SCC put forward by the Executive Head teacher on their behalf to either amalgamate with Kings or consider a soft federation, one of the mitigating factors against amalgamation was the potential loss of specialisms.
The consultation document fails to address the issue of how educational standards at Tomlinscote would be maintained and improved if the proposal were to be enacted.
More analysis here. (link)
Is the Proposed Solution Viable?
The viability of the proposal depends on this statement being valid. If this statement is not true it calls into question the whole basis of the proposal. The proposal should therefore explain how this statement is to be made reality. It completely fails to do this.
The consultation document states:
‘The governing body and headteacher of Tomlinscote would run the expanded school; all staff from the existing Tomlinscote would continue in their posts; the ethos, identity and name of the school would remain’ ( Page 15).
Taking this one clause at a time:
‘The governing body and head teacher of Tomlinscote would run the expanded school’
Tomlinscote has just appointed a new Executive head who will start in September 2011. The existing head will not run the expanded school. It is not clear that the new head or governing body have experience of creating and managing a very large split site school.
‘All staff from Tomlinscote would remain in their posts’.
This is simply unsustainable.
How is this to be achieved? There could be staff that will leave because they don’t like the proposed solution and don’t wish to remain, or who are retiring. It is the good teachers who will most easily find new employment. Are they to be prevented from leaving? If so, how?
‘the ethos, identity and name of the school would remain’
This is core to the proposal, yet there is no explanation at all of how this is to be achieved.
Much of Tomlinscote’s culture is created by its specialism in modern foreign languages.
The recent OFSTED says ‘The impact of specialist status permeates the school’s whole existence, philosophy and ethos.’, yet there is not a single statement in the whole consultation document which mentions specialism, let alone explains how it could be retained through the transition to a split site
In a governor’s meeting on March 29th 2010 where the governors discussed a proposal from SCC put forward by the Executive head on their behalf to either amalgamate with Kings or consider a soft federation one of the mitigating factors against amalgamation was the potential loss of specialisms.
The existing character of Tomlinscote has been strongly influenced by Mr Ryles. Mr Ryles is leaving and the new head will inevitably bring changes to the school.
In summary, the viability of the solution proposed depends on the statement
‘The governing body and headteacher of Tomlinscote would run the expanded school; all staff from the existing Tomlinscote would continue in their posts; the ethos, identity and name of the school would remain’.
As discussed above, this is a completely unrealistic and undeliverable proposition. The consultation document does not even attempt to explain how this could be achieved.
‘The governing body and headteacher of Tomlinscote would run the expanded school; all staff from the existing Tomlinscote would continue in their posts; the ethos, identity and name of the school would remain’
The viability of the proposal depends on the statement above being valid and true. The proposal needs to explain, which it does not, how the governing body and the new Executive Head teacher would run the school and how they can guarantee that all Tomlinscote staff would remain in their positions as staff have indicated that they are not in favour of this expansion and could well decide to leave if it were to go ahead. The proposal needs to tell us how it is going to ensure its statement above will happen and how they can promise this. It completely fails to do so.
On school ethos, the recent OFSTED says ‘The impact of specialist status permeates the school’s whole existence, philosophy and ethos.’ Yet there is not a single statement in the whole consultation document which mentions specialism, let alone explains how it could be retained through the transition to a split site school.
In a governor’s meeting on March 29th 2010 where the governors discussed a proposal from SCC put forward by the Executive Head teacher on their behalf to either amalgamate with Kings or consider a soft federation, one of the mitigating factors against amalgamation was the potential loss of specialisms.
The consultation document fails to address the issue of how educational standards at Tomlinscote would be maintained and improved if the proposal were to be enacted.
More analysis here. (link)
Is the Proposed Solution Viable?
The viability of the proposal depends on this statement being valid. If this statement is not true it calls into question the whole basis of the proposal. The proposal should therefore explain how this statement is to be made reality. It completely fails to do this.
The consultation document states:
‘The governing body and headteacher of Tomlinscote would run the expanded school; all staff from the existing Tomlinscote would continue in their posts; the ethos, identity and name of the school would remain’ ( Page 15).
Taking this one clause at a time:
‘The governing body and head teacher of Tomlinscote would run the expanded school’
Tomlinscote has just appointed a new Executive head who will start in September 2011. The existing head will not run the expanded school. It is not clear that the new head or governing body have experience of creating and managing a very large split site school.
‘All staff from Tomlinscote would remain in their posts’.
This is simply unsustainable.
How is this to be achieved? There could be staff that will leave because they don’t like the proposed solution and don’t wish to remain, or who are retiring. It is the good teachers who will most easily find new employment. Are they to be prevented from leaving? If so, how?
‘the ethos, identity and name of the school would remain’
This is core to the proposal, yet there is no explanation at all of how this is to be achieved.
Much of Tomlinscote’s culture is created by its specialism in modern foreign languages.
The recent OFSTED says ‘The impact of specialist status permeates the school’s whole existence, philosophy and ethos.’, yet there is not a single statement in the whole consultation document which mentions specialism, let alone explains how it could be retained through the transition to a split site
In a governor’s meeting on March 29th 2010 where the governors discussed a proposal from SCC put forward by the Executive head on their behalf to either amalgamate with Kings or consider a soft federation one of the mitigating factors against amalgamation was the potential loss of specialisms.
The existing character of Tomlinscote has been strongly influenced by Mr Ryles. Mr Ryles is leaving and the new head will inevitably bring changes to the school.
In summary, the viability of the solution proposed depends on the statement
‘The governing body and headteacher of Tomlinscote would run the expanded school; all staff from the existing Tomlinscote would continue in their posts; the ethos, identity and name of the school would remain’.
As discussed above, this is a completely unrealistic and undeliverable proposition. The consultation document does not even attempt to explain how this could be achieved.
No comments:
Post a Comment