Split site disadvantages

My goodness I had a browse around and I found LOTS of split site stuff.  There were some schools that had outstanding ratings that had split sites but even they wanted to be on one site.  Lots of schools that were having big difficulties because of a split site and some that were criticised by ofsted because of their inability to handle it.


Teachers suffered most - I suggest that you guys have a discussion on TES and contact your unions for information on their views about split site schools.  I'd love to hear your feedback.


I would be particularly interested if anyone knows or can get in touch personally with anyone who has worked in a split site school for their views.


It does not look that good I'm afraid.


tomlinscote.kings@gmail.com
http://anonymouse.org/anonemail.html  Please note when using this that emails will be randomly delayed by up to 12 hours to protect privacy.


I..

---

I have taught on a split site school for the past 5 years and the added stress of having to drive to your next lesson on a regular basis is starting to get to me. It means you are usually late for your lesson, the kids are already fighting in the corridor by the time you get to the classroom, you waste alot of time having to get everything set up - which means the class becomes even more unsettled and to make matters worse you lose 5 to 10 mins of your breaktime if you have to go the other campus to teach your next lesson. What makes matters worse at our school is the fact that some teachers don't have to do this at all and are not experiencing half the stress that i am. I think i should be payed more or given an extra PPA for having to do this regularly - do you agree / disagree...?

----

I take it that 'Schwarms' you have never worked on a split site school - I am currently at one and it is killing me. The staff are generally less supportive, there is no community or team feel amongst morale, the kids have more ownership of the classrooms than the teachers, you are permanently exhausted from travelling and often your break and/ or PPA will involve travelling. Its not the 'teaching' that is exhausting its the travelling, some days I dont get the chance to have a coffee or a toilet break as I am continually driving between sites, it makes marking difficult and planning non-existent during school time. I am relieved that I have been able to find another school to work at and leave this one behind, but I am fearful of the younger colleagues who will leave teaching as a profession thinking that this is how all schools operate.

I agree we shouldn't be paid more, but a more considerate timetable and supportive attitude from other teachers would help a little in making the workplace one that you want to stay at and develop a career. This is nothing about the stress of teaching but the stress of travelling and I think until people actually experience working on a split site school and travelling between sites at least twice a day they cannot understand the effect that this has on your teaching ability.
http://community.tes.co.uk/forums/p/273396/6658057.aspx

---

Head teacher Carolyn Roberts welcomed the news. She said: "It has been a constant drain on resources having two sites because classes have had to be split and teachers spend their lunch hour driving between campuses.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wear/4472005.stm

---

Operating the new academy, which is supposed and aims to coalesce two previous schools, is much more difficult on two separate sites that are well over a mile apart. Operating on two sites adds considerably to the costs and management issues and involves the duplication of a whole range of functions that simply would be unnecessary if the school were on a single site. While the site is still split into two halves, it is also difficult for the new management team, educationally I suspect, to build quickly the new ethos and purpose that they seek for a single, all-ability, co-educational school.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2010-09-09b.571.0

---

Looks like schools in Surrey get additional money for being in a federation or having a split site.

http://www.surrey-fire.gov.uk/sccwebsite/sccwspages.nsf/LookupWebPagesByTITLE_RTF/Split+site+factor?opendocument

But in one case in Manchester when the CC dropped this funding it put a school in massive problems.

http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features/8/news/43320/head-tightens-belts-to-pay-back-369000

and in further evidence that getting the funding because you need it does not mean it will always be there see this wrangling about split site funding.

http://esi.essexcc.gov.uk/vip8/si/esi/dis/content/index.jsp?&sectionLink=true&sectionOid=308&oid=24360

---

Schools on split sites incur additional costs due to the loss of economies of scale...

http://www.deni.gov.uk/april_2001_consultation_split_sites_factor.pdf

---

Parents anger forces split-site rethink

http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/news/Parents-anger-forces-academy-split-rethink/article-2736716-detail/article.html

---

A school is even more likely to have to close due to snow if there is significant travel between buildings.

http://www.hu17.net/longcroft-school-to-reman-closed-on-friday/

---

Salesian (PJ Wilkinson said this was a success) looks like as split site disaster to me.


School Proposal Principal issues Salesian Replace existing split ...

---

Split site schools bad for staff

Peter Inson, who is also author of the book Dunno, told the Independent: '[I have] taught in a split-site school, which is what Mr Balls wants to create, and I would not impose this on my staff.

Commenting on reports of Government plans to force state schools into mergers or federations, Martin Johnson, deputy general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, said: 'Arranged marriage is one thing, shotgun weddings are another.


http://www.atl.org.uk/education-news/default.asp?article=%7B51E95AD5-180D-4C50-A0F6-00C99E7955D3%7D

Peter Inson - lays into Ed Balls on combining schools - bit controversial

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/peter-inson-you-wont-improve-schools-by-mixing-the-bad-with-the-good-1715933.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6557945.ece

---

That is the physical position at the lower school, but in addition there are the human dimension and the accompanying practical difficulties arising from the split site. To emphasise these genuine problems, I can do no better than quote from the Office for Standards in Education inspection report of May 1996: The school's split site poses problems for its work. The lower school buildings provide a poor learning environment…The school is part way through a phased development of its accommodation, 262designed to consolidate the school on one site and improve facilities in the future. The quality of some of the new buildings is good, for example the sixth form area and computer rooms at the upper school. However, for pupils currently in the school, the provision and standard of accommodation are unsatisfactory in a number of respects. The school occupies two sites approximately 1 km apart. The unavoidable movement of teachers, and to a lesser extent, pupils, has a negative impact on the quality of education provided. I graduated in geography some 35 years ago—a long time ago—and therefore feel for the subject, although I have forgotten most of what I learned at university.

The report continues: The extent of movements reduced teaching and preparation time; for example there are 31 such breaks in geography in each timetable cycle apart from those coinciding with breaks and lunchtimes…The lower school presents a dispiriting learning environment. This site provides little stimulus to pupils on entry to the school…Some teachers spend a high proportion of their time with only one part of the age range and this on one of the two sites. This hinders the development of consistent practices and communications…Good formal and informal communications seek to overcome the problems of having staff on two sites; the tension between seeking to reduce staff travelling and ensuring full participation in subject teams has not yet been resolved satisfactorily". The situation, then, is that time is wasted in travelling between the sites. There is stress on staff; inefficient use and duplication of equipment and materials; timetabling constraints; under-use of specialist facilities at one site and over-use at the other; and there are revenue funding implications for the local education authority and the school itself. My hon. Friend's Department has allowed £23,000 towards the school budget to try to cover the split site situation. Cornwall makes the figure up to £45,500. The governors' realistic assessment of the cost of the split site is £77,000.

The conclusions reached by the Ofsted inspection team clearly show the need to improve the position as soon as possible. One of the key issues identified by the inspectors was the need for the local education authority and the governors to

continue to seek to overcome the constraints imposed by the split site, and, in the short term, to improve the learning environment in the lower school and to integrate it more fully into the life and work of the school as a whole. The governors and the staff are attempting to do that. Certain improvements and extensions are being undertaken. I must emphasise, however, that, when those improvements are completed, the difficulties associated with a split site will still not be resolved.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/11/liskeard-school-and-community-college

---

Well well....as 'any fule know', history teaches us that we don't learn from History.
The old Ryles Park School was split site, with the lower school children educated in an old Victorian building off Byrons Street and the upper school on the Ryles Park site.

The teachers did the commuting between lessons using their own cars: I know as I was one of those teachers, though I used to ride my bike through the park in order to get to lessons.

I then moved to Wilmslow, where a similar split site system was in operation - this time initially a three way split. Again, the staff moved between lessons on a school mini bus. We had to leave our classes before the bell and arrive after the bell in order to meet the school time-table.

Often the materials books and equipment would have been left behind in the stress of this and the pupils were essentially unsupervised. I used to joke that they could play entire football matches in the travelling time, built into the time- table

Has anyone cared to ask any teacher who has operated this system of split site teaching of the benefits to the children? I doubt it.

The poor decision-making about Macclesfield schools, goes back thirty years with the necessity to provide a Grammar School education for boys, when Kings discontinued the offer of 'selling' places to the County. Fallibroome was the school built to fill this gap Its geographical location on the South West side of town, adjacent to Henbury High, was a mistake and at that point, the 'Grammar School boys could have been educated at Ryles Park.

Does this brief history lesson explain the cynicism I feel?

The decision to merge the two schools into one, and to operate a split -site has nothing to do with the desire to provide good, better or best education in Macclesfield.

My own advice? leave the schools as they are. Bring in special measures (and with it extra cash) for Macc High. The parents of children in Sutton, Gawsworth and Langley who currently bus their children to primary schools round the county in order to get them into other schools will want them to go to Macc High.

I am available for consultation, should the various bodies wish to have a first hand account of the experience of split site education

http://menmedia.co.uk/macclesfieldexpress/news/s/1243103_takeover_means_the_end_for_macclesfield_high

---

The college is strongly led by the principal, whose vision for, and commitment to, the students is shared by the senior leadership team and the staff, who work purposefully to overcome the difficulties which the college's split site presents.

http://teachweb.co.uk/secondary-schools/East-Sussex-B45/Seaford-Head-Community-College-SC987.html

---

I taught at Grove last year and attended many of Ms Johnsons staff planning meetings and she got of to a bad start with many staff members that got progressively worse. For the merger and split site to work it needs the whole staff to pull together to make it workable. Now that she has stepped aside maybe this can happen.

I know that many of my former colleagues were disillusioned with what was happening and the lack of leadership that was being shown. Hopefully some of the 19 teachers that were resigning at xmas can be persuaded to stay on and create the succesful acadamy that the community deserves.
----
they should of listened to what everyone wanted ,we didnt want the schools to join,to one big mass school,and certainly not backed by a christan backed charity,the council should of kept the school in their hands,at the end of the day its all about money,when it should be about happy kids and good teachers.
----
I think she resigned because of stresses.. but most people would expect to be put under stress when becoming the head teacher of 2 merged schools.
---

http://www.thisishampshire.net/archive/2008/11/24/++News+-++Latest+Headlines/3872026.Head_of_troubled_Oasis_academy_quits/

---

Often there was insufficient planning and preparation leading to inherently chaotic forms of organisation such as split-site schools. In many areas teachers and pupils found themselves almost overnight in almost unrecognisable institutions with new colleagues new teachers and new classmates.
http://www.campaignforstateeducation.org.uk/Comprehensive%20Success%20Story.pdf 

---

will add more as time permits

PAN research

Disputes over the schools admissions policy can be ruled on by
http://www.schoolsadjudicator.gov.uk/index.cfm

Interestingly complaints for Surrey LEA "Non compliant with code" are a huge block - perhaps its just cos Surrey has a lot of people?

http://www.schoolsadjudicator.gov.uk/decisions_all.cfm?order=lea&type_of_school=0&year=0&casetype=all#temp2

Its possibly worth a browse round this site to see if anyone gets a clearer view of what sort of things the Schools Adjudicator deals with.

PAN can be revised downward.

http://www.cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk/education_and_learning/parents/school_admissions/school_admission_arrangements/consultation_2012_arrangements/proposed_pan_changes.aspx

http://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/council/have_your_say/consultation_search/Consultation_search_index/schools_admission_arrangements_for_201112.asp

Its been part of debates in Parliament

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm101213/debtext/101213-0004.htm

Mark Lancaster: The hon. Member comes to the nub of the problem-how we square that circle between the rights of schools to set their own admissions and the
13 Dec 2010 : Column 790
rights of families to get their children into their local school. In Milton Keynes, the consequence is that new families moving in cannot get a place at their local school.

Network Rail's new headquarters is set to bring 2,000 new staff to the city. Yes, there will be school places for the children who move here, but will these be anywhere near their houses and how long will they have to wait to start? This situation also spells trouble as we see the creation of more academies. In Milton Keynes, two schools have applied for academy status, which I wholeheartedly support. I am delighted about it, but will they, as in the previous case, have reduced PANs and will we see yet more displacement within the city?


I get a sniff here that suggests there might be something in Academy status that means they can set their own PAN. If that is so then could Tomlinscote go Academy and do it? Is the merger in response to the fact Collingwood may be able to change its PAN? Flying a kite here but might be worth a browse.

Teacher Stress and School Merger - KH

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a739596685

55% of such mergers resulted in a decline in exam results - KH

And this does not even include the split site problem....

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23371813-school-mergers-can-worsen-results.do

More than half of school mergers lead to a drop in exam results, according to new research.

Ministers want to encourage more successful schools to form federations with weaker schools in an effort to drive up standards, but research from the Hay Group consultancy firm found 55% of such mergers resulted in a decline in exam results over the first three years.

The study examined both federations between two schools and formal mergers where two schools become one.

Russell Hobby, the education consultant at Hay Group responsible for the research, said: "As the corporate sector shows, mergers are complex and problematic transactions.

"Schools need resources and support to navigate the cultural as well as logistical challenges a merger presents. The number of schools faltering following a merger is worryingly high, and with more mergers planned, this could affect thousands of students."

The findings varied between primary and secondary education, with 68% of merged secondary schools seeing an ongoing drop in performance.

Half of primary schools experienced a sustained decline in academic results after a merger.

The research was based on a detailed study of 73 mergers over the last six years, involving a total of 207 schools.

The study drew parallels with the private sector, where 50-70% of corporate mergers and acquisitions fail to deliver on their objectives, and share price falls by 10% on average in the first year after a merger, but the Hay Group said decline was not the inevitable consequence of a merger, with one fifth (21%) of merged schools immediately improving performance.

More than a quarter - 28% - of schools experienced a one or two-year decline following a merger, but then recovered.

Frimley Park Hospital

I'm sure that we have quite a few healthcare professionals in our midst.  I think we need to make the hospital management and staff aware that this proposal could gridlock the traffic twice a day.  If someone has the contacts to be able to get the Management of Frimley Park Hospital to ask SurreyCC how they intend to deal with it that would be nice.

Change to Michael Gove question time panel.

If the people who are going to this meeting with an interest in the Tomlinscote-Kings Merger could email me tomlinscote.kings@gmail.com putting GOVE MEETING in the subject I'll put together an email list so we can coordinate potential questions.


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Cllr Rodney Bates <rodney.bates@surreyheath.gov.uk>
Date: Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 7:55 PM
Subject: Question event
To: tomlinscote.kings@gmail.com


Hi


I have been asked by Cathie Russell of Connect Christian Counselling Service to contact you regarding the question time event with Michael Gove which is taking place next Friday evening at High Cross Church.


She has been made aware that some publicity has gone round with the "old" panel including on the Council's website and that as a result, some people may mistakenly believe that Tony Ryles will be appearing at the event. This is not correct and the actual panel will be as follows:-


Rodney Bates, Surrey Heath Labour Councillor


Andy Brooks, General Practitioner


John May, Mayor, Surrey Heath


Juliette May, Mayoress, Surrey Heath


David Harris, Head, Ravenscote Junior School


The change of panel is because the event was originally scheduled for a few weeks ago but had to be postponed due to another commitment that Michael Gove had. The previously advertised speakers (including Tony Ryles) will not be attending.


This event is still open to people to attend but Cathie would be grateful if you could make people aware of the panel change through your website in light of the wider interest on the proposed schools merger. The theme for the evening is the "Big Society" although I understand that there is likely to be an opportunity for local issues to be raised. The contact details for tickets and all other info remains unchanged.


Regards


Cllr Rodney Bates


Old Dean Ward

Reply to Anon re conflicts of interest.

Anonymous said...

It seems to me that you are denigrating the very things that make Tomlinscote the school with such an excellent reputation that you and everyone else so desperately wants their child/children to attend. You can't have it both ways. How can you possibly insinuate that a good working relationship between Governors and Mr Ryles is a bad thing? Do you not understand that it is vitally important that the Governors and the Head work hand and hand or nothing would get done?

It is also an insult to suggest that Mr Ryles doesn't have the best interest of Tomlinscote students at heart, it is very fortunate for all students in the area that he is generous enough to think that Tomlinscote is able to give all of them the benefit of a good education by taking over Kings International not just those that are fortunate enough to get into Tomlinscote. You seem to be implying that only your child should have the opportunity to receive an excellent education. Your call for Mr Ryles to step down is an abomination and I think that if you are so unhappy with Tomlinscote with him as the Head, you should take your child out of the school and enroll him in a school that you think will give him a better education, perhaps Gordon's would be more to your liking.

1 April 2011 07:38

---

I suggested Mr Ryles to step down and take no further part in the "merger" i.e. take "gardening leave" before retirement.  I will not discuss this on-line any further and suggest nobody else does either.  For anyone who feels strongly on the subject one way or the other, a more appropriate course of action would be to contact the Chairman of the Governors privately.

I think that I was quite glowing about both Mr Ryles' achievements and abilities wrt. Tomlinscote, I will add for the sake of completeness that by all accounts the application of his considerable abilities to Kings has also been effective despite the short / shortened time he has been there.

In terms of his relationship with the governors, the governors are effectively the board of a company.  In this case one with many millions of pounds flowing through it and the fate over the years of thousands of childrens educations.  The requirement is that the governors prosecute their business in a professional and civil manner, if they enjoy their jobs that is good.  It is neither a requirement nor an obstacle if they enjoy each others company but it can be a complication.  Friendships within business do not usually cause concern but they can be somewhat divisive when they are placed within the confines of a voting committee.  A voting committee is supposed to have "one man one vote" any close relationships that are formed, cliques or groups, perverts this structure. 

Mr Ryles has said that he is stepping down because it is only right for the New Head to be in charge of the restructuring project.  IF it is true (as we keep on being told) that this is a consultation then surely the New Head should participate in the task of deciding if he thinks a merger is the best idea - then he will be partly responsible for the decision.  If the merger is forced through against parents wishes whoever does it is likely to be highly unpopular so it is more convenient that this be someone who does not stay to "face the music".

I'll also answer the other point you make about the educational provision for my child.  My child receives an excellent education from the teachers at Tomlinscote, which is 4 minutes walk, if I was 4 minutes walk from Kings I imagine I'd send them there, and by all accounts get some excellent teachers there too.

Nothing in the proposals convinces me that Kings is not capable of being a viable and well respected school, nothing I've seen yet convinces me it needs to close.  I believe that a "soft federation" between the schools is good but that an upper and lower school on two sites (separated by a traffic blackspot) raises so many educational difficulties its not in the interests of any of the children.  I believe the restructure will cause such chaos that any child setting foot in the combined school in the next 4-5 years will have their education materially affected.  Still worse if SurreyCCs own population predictions are true the school will shortly afterward go through ANOTHER period of massive change as it gets bigger.

Send my children to Gordons? If you knew me you'd laugh!

Meetings Update (Tomlinscote) - Claire Funnell

Following attendance at the Tomlinscote Consultation meetings on Wednesday night, I t was suggested that I might like to update my previous blog.

It is true to say there was a massive contrast between the two meetings, but none-the-less the message was clear that we, as parents, do not wish for this merger/absorption to happen.

I stayed for the whole 4 hours and I was glad I did as although contrasting arguments and opinions were raised, it was clear that we are united in one goal – to keep Kings and Tomlinscote separate for the right reasons for all of our children.

Having a year 5 child, it dawned on me that the effect that this would have on him is probably more concerning than that of my older year 7 son. We will be making choices based on a school and school ethos that doesn’t yet exist or Collingwood. Based on this choice, we would be stupid not to choose Collingwood? With all “PAN” of 775 parents choosing Collingwood as 1st preference, parents like myself who historically would have had a choice between the two larger schools (because of our location) and Kings (because of space spaces) , will be allocated to our second choice as Collingwood will be oversubscribed . 2nd choice being – no choice. Many year 5 parents are not even aware of the detail and are thinking that the decision making does not affect them. It so does.

On Monday morning I was a parent who was concerned, but had faith that the decisions would be made based on what is best for the education of the children in Surrey Heath. As I have absorbed more information over this week, my opinions have changed. I believe that the decisions are based, on the whole, on financial savings and politics, and have very little to do with education.

Since I wrote the article for the blog earlier in the week, I have had numerous emails, many with the same message – “I would really like to think that there was something that I/we could do to stop this, but I think the decision has been made/I think this is a done deal.” I do not agree.

Between the two schools we have over 2000 sets of parents who apparently feel exactly the same way as me and you. I have not heard of one person (with the exception of the men on the stage) who thinks that this is a good idea, especially now , as more facts are emerging. If you would like to be part of the fight against this, then you should make yourself known to Ian (blog administrator), so that interested parties can begin to work together. It is unlikely that 1 or 2 people will make a difference, but 2000 + really can.  

It may well be that our views and opinions will be dismissed and this will be pushed through but we owe it to our own children, and all children of Tomlinscote and Kings, to become an organised and united front to make our voices heard.

There is a process - its not a done deal - people should not give up

Well I'll say one thing the meetings have been getting better - I'm sure its not that I'm just being worn down!  The SurreyCC guys were "almost" at the point I might have considered allowing them to address a small unimportant meeting as practice.  They did however seem to have put a bit of effort in.

The questions from parents were of a very high standard I would be very interested to act as a conduit to put some of you together to research your chosen line of enquiry - it seemed a couple of people would like to work on population statistics.

Afterward we got to chat informally with some of the many governors who were in attendance, they talked a little about starting the "due diligence" process.  I don't really have any specifics to relate but it was quite comforting to hear them answer questions from parents, also for them to see that the parents were not wielding pitchforks and just wanted to see that there would be a fair and professional investigation of the facts.  I did suggest to them that they outline the process, the steps they would take in a small document - we may not find out much but it at least provides comfort that there is a process which for the cynical majority is something of a relief.  I wouldn't trust SurreyCC at all, but the governors vague descriptions of the proto stages of "due diligence" made me happier that someone was going to hold SurreyCC to account in a professional manner - they discussed for example the hiring of external consultants to provide specialist expertise that they might be lacking.  I'm sure they will have the clout to demand SurreyCC fess up the correct documents although the time-frame seems very short to me.  SurreyCC has so far been guilty of such bungling incompetence in its presentations that it leaves you assuming that there must be some angle or ulterior motive.  I loved the comment posted somewhere on this blog discussing the obsession with the Kings site for example "Is there Oil under Kings or something?" I think we should definitely probe if Kings really needs to close, SurreyCC seem so sure on such flimsy evidence.  SurreyCC were picked on again and again for their stats and one woman filleted them with such skill and ease it was embarrassing to watch.... I almost felt sorry for them.

All in all this was the best meeting I've been too so far.

I started off this process thinking this was a "done deal" and that even though it was hopeless we had a duty to ask questions.  I've been aghast at those who have said "what can you do" because it is important that we engage in the process and make our views heard.

I came away from this meeting still carrying the impression that if SurreyCC had their way it would have been a done deal and with no due diligence - we would have just been informed what was going to happen.  We have no idea what happened in that emergency governors meeting on the 10th of March (the minutes are sealed) but whoever forced it to "due diligence" did us a very big favour.

There is a process - its not a done deal - people should not give up.

---

Anyone else have a different view on this meeting send it to me.

Update: Can we trust Surrey County Council's Forecasts? Martin Knowles

Last night (Wednesday 30th) at the later meeting at Tomlinscote, I questioned Surrey CC's (SCC) figures on future children coming through the Secondary School system and that I had found higher predicted figures on Surrey Heath's website and SCC's website. Their response was that they could not answer my questions on the spot without further research. My question was "Why are there less children predicted to come through secondary schools locally compared to their predictions last year?"

However this evening (Thursday 31st), given more time to think this through they suggested for the first time that they had got their predictions in 2010 wrong. Very convenient in my view. Why was this reason? "Because we thought that Deepcut Barracks would become available from 2011 and it has been delayed due to the economic downturn"

I have researched this in the media and below is a quote from the BBC news site from 8th January 2008: "Armed Forces Minister Bob Ainsworth announces that the Princess Royal Barracks at Deepcut are to be sold off but not until 2013."

Surrey Heath Borough Council has always worked on the basis that the site would not be passed to developers until late 2013 with the site being occupied from 2015. Their Local Development Framework and Deepcut planning guidance is based on this.

My view is: "It is clear that Surrey CC are driving this forward and providing the evidence base to Governors at Tomlinscote and the wider community. If they can make such fundamental errors on new development and are clearly not effectively communicating with Surrey Heath Council, how can we believe anything that they say moving forward"

You decide for yourself but please ask the relevant questions to Tomlinscote Governors and Councillors at Surrey County Council. In particular ask Andrew Povey, the Leader of Surrey CC andrew. Equally ask why Surrey Heath Borough Council Councillors and professional staff may not have been consulted prior to the proposals..

SCC have consistently said that the education of children is their primary concern. That may be the case for the Education Department but they also have other statutory functions including that of being the Highway Authority. There is no statutory requirement for them to consult with colleagues and seek the view of the Highway Authority prior to the proposals moving forward. If the merger went forward then the outcome could be gridlock on the local strategic highway network during peak periods (e.g. A325 Portsmouth Road and Frimley Road) due to additional car traffic and pedestrian crossings being used more frequently.

You all need to be aware that unlike a planning application for a new development, the Highway Authority has no say on whether it is acceptable, nor does Surrey Heath as Planning Authority. Therefore the only 'checks and balances' are down to pressure from the community on Governors at Tomlinscote and County Councillors at SCC. Don't assume that some professional in the planning department at Surrey Heath is looking after your interests.

Therefore you have to make your view known to all in power. Otherwise you have no right to complain in the future if it becomes reality.

Good luck!

Martin Knowles

Ofsted for Kings

on Monday Tuesday.

Tomlinscote can't be far off one either.

Parental input to Ofsted at either site is going to be interesting to put it mildly.

On another note can we all wish the Kings Staff and Students the very best, I have some idea from some experiences in the past how hard it is to have to do an excellent job under so much pressure when there is so much uncertainty hanging over you.  It is horrible - stay strong.... buy in a bottle for Wednesday!

Yr 6 - info meetings - sorry its late

Better late than never,

Dates and times for the Year 6 meetings were included in the Ravenscote Newsletter dated 24th March:

The County Council are inviting prospective parents to a consultation evening at Tomlinscote and

Kings.

The dates are:
Thursday 31st March @ Tomlinscote School 7 pm
Friday 1st April @ Kings International College 7 pm

Population Statistics - Martin Knowles

This is Surrey CC's Education Organisation Plan 2010.

http://www.surreycc.gov.uk/sccwebsite/sccwspublications.nsf/591f7dda55aad72a80256c670041a50d/4f2df68c0df0dafe8025775b002a26e0/$FILE/EOPAC%202010%20ch%2013%20Surrey%20Heath.pdf

It does show a decline in year 7 pupils up to 2014 but then an increase. This would mean that in the second year of operation of the combined school, year 7 numbers would be increasing towards current levels, making two schools viable again. The data also shows that child birth follows cycles with ebbs and flows and that you need to maintain some capacity to cater for surges otherwise pupils will have to be turned away and travel to schools in other Authorities.

On the basis that Surrey County Council will have to throw substantial amounts of money at the new combined school to provide buses, transport staff and to facilitate other changes (Mr Ryles and SCC suggested that the Council would put more money into the school than at present) surely SCC should think longer term in terms of the interest of children and the community and ride out the short term blip, in the knowledge that pupil numbers will increase beyond 2014 leading to a shortfall of spaces in 2019. An additional 1,500 houses at Deepcut from 2016 will bolster pupil numbers even more longer term, maybe even requiring an increase in School facilities. I'll bet that Surrey County Council will argue for and extract a hefty education contribution from the future developers of Deepcut towards increasing and improving education facilities.

Surrey's view in 2010 was to take no action on secondary school provision but to monitor. What Surrey CC said in the meetings this week was that the amount of development coming forward had reduced since they had previously reviewed pupil numbers and they cited the development of Deepcut as an example and they asserted that it had been delayed. My understanding from researching this on the internet is that in 2008 the Secretary of State for Defence announced that the site would become available from 2013 for redevelopment. As far as I am aware, this timescale has not changed. There are no other major developments planned in the area, apart from small infill schemes of a few houses. Surely they can't be suggesting that a year on from their previous review that the amount of new development has had such a significant impact on children numbers.

The problem with any modelling of population prediction is that it is simply that. The assumptions you put in significantly affect the output. The recent 2011 Census will provide more accurate information on children numbers and ages but it will take at least a year for this data to be analysed and made available to Surrey CC or the public. The decision will be made BEFORE the results of the Census are available. Surely at the very least, Surrey CC should delay the decision until they have up to date information?

Surrey County Council needs to publish more information to allow proper scrutiny by the electorate.

Martin Knowles

Transparency - Michael Gove we need your help NOW

When Mr Ryles was asked for his and the governors position in the first meeting Mr Ryles said "The governors are behind me" he subsequently corrected himself to "I am behind the governors" but for me it was already too late. Mr Ryles is just too accomplished and practiced a speaker to be making errors like that. I had been prepared to ignore the whisperings from staff and parents about dinner parties, golf and sharing nice bottles of red - the cosy relationship between Mr Ryles and some of his governors but in that one "Freudian Slip" he lost me forever. Don't get me wrong Mr Ryles has been an exceptional headmaster and has built a fantastically strong school from which we have all benefited. My personal distaste for the mechanics of modern education with the head needing to chase money and market his school should not detract from the fact that Mr Ryles has "played the game" very very effectively and in what he has created at Tomlinscote we have benefited. His almost shameless pitch for the merger and what it would bring to Tomlinscote worried me enormously, he has said repeatedly that this was SurreyCC decision and proposal. But when push came to shove, Mr Ryles as the only person with enough people skills and public speaking experience was put centre stage by SurreyCC to argue THEIR case. The mood in the hall was that despite an almost unanimous agreement between Tomlinscote and Kings parents that the merger is a bad idea, parental views were going to be run over roughshod. I got home to a full email inbox of fury and despair, how could the views of the parents of 2000+ children count for nothing? OK I don't know the views of ALL parents but there appears to be a majority No camp, a sizeable "it's a done deal we don't like it but what can you do" camp and with the exception of SurreyCC and Mr Ryles a near silent Yes camp.

OK so we have been told by everyone that this decision is down to the governors. The big question right now is "Do the parents trust the governors to make a decision that is in the best interests of their children?" Lets look at that one and cut the governors some slack. It is my understanding that if the governors had voted to combine with Kings and not take it to "due diligence" that they had to power to have made this decision without ANY consultation with parents - I may be wrong here. If I'm right then rather than tarring all the governors with one brush we need to be thankful that enough governors voted to do the due diligence rather than just rubber stamping it. There seems to be two camps in the governors and it is fairly finely poised.

I covered in a previous blog post that I felt Mr Ryles' position on the restructuring committee at Kings and on the governors at Tomlinscote as being a rather massive "conflict of interest". I was worried it skewed the balance of the governors since his interest was not that of the headteacher of Tomlinscote (the reason he is on the governors) his interest has more of the focus of a community governor. My assertion that Mr Ryles, and the considerable weight he has in the governing body, is not directly focussed on the needs of Tomlinscote but has a wider reach is only enhanced by his apparent closeness to SurreyCC and their proposal. SurreyCC makes the case from one side but in reality SurreyCC also has representation on the governors, so any concerns about Mr Ryles' primary focus are obviously of grave concern. There is a very good reason that the governors list is split to give representation to community, staff, parents etc. They are not just of grave concern to me, I'm sure the governors are jockeying for position too, allegedly a governor in favour of the merger who wished to step down has been asked to stay on to see it through. If true, this is even more concerning, I don't want my childrens future to be decided by some narrowly fought game of political intrigue. Without more information I am broadly supportive of the majority of the governors but I call for significantly more transparency, without it the natural reaction of the majority of parents will certainly be one of "no confidence". That leads in a very ugly direction.

As to Mr Ryles I thank him for the years of excellent service to Tomlinscote school but feel this is the end. Mr Ryles said he was stepping down so that a new head could undertake the restructuring project. I will skip over the fact that this is a "proposed" restructuring project and despite this the new head is to be interviewed for before the outcome is resolved (as early as next week). If Mr Ryles truly believes that the future is for another person to define (as he says) then he has no business being further involved in this decision. I would like to see Mr Ryles step down effective immediately and pass the baton over to Mrs Z Johnson-Walker who would continue to run Tomlinscote as she has been doing successfully in Mr Ryles' absence. The appointment of a new head teacher cannot possibly be accomplished when the job that the candidate would have to perform is so much up in the air.

I call on Michael Gove as our local MP to intervene - not to determine an outcome but to examine the way that this has been handled by all involved parties. NOW Michael - the consultation period is too short for you to drag your feet.

I would like to know how many people agree with me.

Parent Proposes a NO CONFIDENCE vote in Governors

I received this mail from a parent who attended both of tonights meetings.

The Governors

I feel very strongly that to only have 7 Governors turn up (that came to light at the second meeting) to hear the views of the parents that they represent, is appalling. I have NO confidence that they will make the right decision when they were not at the meetings to hear the parents concerns. There is also nothing planned for the Governors to meet with the parents to hear their views.

Maybe the time is right to table a vote of No Confidence in all of the Governors and vote in people who do care about the parents views and the education for our children.

---

Please also read my blog post here.  This attempts to place the frustration with the transparency of the dealings of the governors in some perspective.  A rather large reason for my writing that post was WHICH 7 governors were present or more pointedly which were absent.  If we are to take it that those present will listen to the parents views we perhaps have a clearer view of what is going on.

Ian Sams - Advises to apply pressure to SurreyCC

From: "Cllr Ian Sams" <Ian.Sams@surreyheath.gov.uk>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 22:05:24
To: REMOVED
Subject: FW: Proposed Tomlinscote/Kings School merger

Went to meeting at Tomlinscote tonight. Very well attended, almost unanimous opposition to merger.
Came away feeling that if pressure is kept up they might waver. We must voice any opposition during consultation. Tell people to contact their Surrey County Councillors. That's Denis Fuller 01276 27276 in the case of Camberley West that includes Kings and Tomlinscote schools.
David Ivison 01276 27778 in the case of Parkside and Heatherside, Chris Pitt ,01252 834221 Frimley Green , Mytchett and Deepcut.

Ian Sams

Borough Councillor Frimley Ward

Hiring a headmaster for a job of unknown scope.

How is it possible to interview and hire a headmaster to take on a job that is not defined?  How can you get the best person for the job if you do not know what the job is?  This for me gives me grave concerns about what is happening in the corridors of power, it is perhaps one of the clearest signs that the feeling expressed at the meeting this evening that it was "a done deal" a "fit up job" was true.  The entire process behind the hiring of this headmaster must be opened up to public scrutiny as a matter of urgency.

Given the uncertainty about the future of Tomlinscote school the only acceptable answer is that Mrs Z Johnson-Walker takes over the school as headmistress until the future of the merger is settled.

Comments please.

SHBC population projections contradicted by their own document

SHBC Council Evidence Base - August 2010 available on request.

Population projections age 0-15

2011 17,500
2016 18,500
2017 19,500
2018 20,000

No drop in between!

Surely nothing has changed in the financial market between August 2010 and March 2011 to make Surrey CC change their view on school children population?!

Surreys own documents mean PAN figures don't add up

PDFs found on Surrey's website show that:

1.    For the admissions next year 245 parents had a preference for Kings International (maybe not their first choice).
2.    Places offered at Kings was 188 in 2010/11 and had increased to 242 in 2011/12.  The PAN for Kings is 150.
3.    If you look at the combined total of offers for Collingwood/Gordon's/Kings and Tomlinscote, in 2010/11 it was 894, in 2011/12 it was 989.  This is a 11% increase from the previous year.  The combined PAN for these schools is 875 which suggests that more children have been offered places than are available.

It shows that the message being put by Surrey does not show in the published information available, hence the reason for them to release the evidence behind their case!



I can send them to anyone interested - they are too long to put here.

School stole Pupils - can we give back the PAN and help Kings

From Get Surrey Site.

July 24, 2003

Cllr John Phillips claims Tomlinscote School pinched pupils from Kings International after Tomlinscote increased its intake to 280 youngsters for the new term...............

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/29305_school_stole_pupils_claim

Letter: David Whitcroft Lib-Dem SHBC Mytchett & Deepcut

Dear Parent,
Possible Combination of Kings International & Tomlinscote Schools
I have been asked by a number of people to comment on the above in view of the forthcoming local elections on May 5th.
The first point to make is that Education is a Surrey County Council responsibility which has nothing to do with Surrey Heath Borough Council of which I am a member. The May 5th election is limited ONLY to Surrey Heath Borough Council with Surrey County Council elections not taking place until 2013 so the future of the two schools will NOT be a substantive issue on May 5th.
The second point to make is that my understanding from the letter from Surrey County Council to parents dated 16th March is that a long process of consultation with parents from both schools will take place before any final decisions are made. The letter makes clear that a six week pre-Statutory Notice consultation will take place and this will then be followed by a second six week Statutory Notice period.
At the first meeting of parents at Kings on 28th March it was indicated that the timescale would be for decisions to be made by September 2011 with implementation of the ‘absorption’, if it proceeds, taking place in September 2012.
Whilst parents may be understandably sceptical about the nature of these ‘consultations’ it is clear AT PRESENT that no detailed proposals for the absorption of Kings into Tomlinscote have yet been put forward and until these details are provided it is very difficult to make informed comment on the situation.
Having made these points, residents are quite entitled to know the views of ANY elected individual on any issue so I will do my best – bearing in mind that I am not involved in any way with the future of the schools - to explain my CURRENT position. I emphasise again that more details are required from the County Council before a final view can be formed.
For many years Kings International and its predecessor school, France Hill, has for whatever reason been the ‘poor relation’ of Tomlinscote and Collingwood in Surrey Heath. The image of the school amongst parents is very poor amongst most people who do not live in the immediate vicinity of the school or do not already have children attending. This is illustrated by the low number of first preferences, just 57, received for the next school year BUT is belied by the loyalty shown to the school by its current parents who, from the first parents meeting, are clearly deeply committed to the school.
The absorption of Kings into Tomlinscote would take this ‘image’ problem away provided, of course, standards at Tomlinscote are maintained. The FIRST area of questioning that the County Council should be subjected to should concern just how they are going to ensure that standards are maintained/improved at the larger school rather than ‘dragged down’ by the addition of a school which has been judged – rightly or wrongly - to be ‘failing’.
The good news on this point, perhaps, is that most qualified people agree that the Kings International pupils are not ’failing’ in any way and will play their part, if appropriate, in developing a new Tomlinscote just as much as existing Tomlinscote pupils.
For me this is the key issue to be addressed. Some people who have already expressed themselves opposed to the proposals have cited traffic and environmental issues as the keystone to their opposition. With great respect, whilst those issues are of great importance, even more important is the quality of the education that both existing and future pupils at both schools will receive. In my view, this is the critical issue about which, in coming months, both the County Council and parents will have to satisfy themselves.
In particular, too, - and this is the SECOND question to be answered - how is the County Council going to ensure that the education being received by CURRENT pupils – especially those taking examinations - is not going to be negatively impacted during the transitional phase of absorbing Kings into Tomlinscote?
On the traffic issues, incidentally, perhaps the THIRD question which the County Council should address is what mitigating measures in the way of transport, bus provision etc is it going to take to minimise the inconvenience to parents and the environmental impacts of the school merger? At the first King’s meeting, the County Council recognised the importance of this.
In the letter to parents mentioned above, the County Council states that demand for secondary school places over the next five years is lower than previously anticipated because of the lack of new housing development in this area. It indicates that this situation will continue until at least 2021. The FOURTH question, therefore, is whether or not the County Council forecasts take into account the planned development of some 1200 new homes in Deepcut – currently scheduled to commence in 2016?
Clearly the impact of such a development on Secondary School places in Surrey Heath will be very significant. When questioned at the first Kings International meeting, County Council Officers seemed less than certain on the point and agreed to take the matter up with local Forward Planners in order to obtain clarification of the Deepcut issues.
Before summing up, it also needs to be said that all the heat and fury generated on this issue by a few people on so called ‘social’ networking sites does nobody any good – least of all the pupils of the two schools and it is to be hoped that the focus will fall squarely on the educational needs of Surrey Heath children rather than calling each other puerile names on Face Book or wherever.
So in summary, my view – and it is a shame, I think, that our local MP Michael Gove has so far simply sat on the fence and encouraged parents to participate in the consultation exercise rather than providing any leadership in his position as Secretary of State for Education – is that the absorption of Kings into Tomlinscote COULD be a very positive development for secondary education in Surrey Heath.  
BUT parents and other stakeholders need to obtain and understand the full proposals from the County Council. They should satisfy themselves that the County Council is basing its decision making on sound forecasts, that proper mitigating measures are taken to minimise any negative environmental impacts brought about by the change and, most important of all, that it is going to take proper steps to ensure that educational standards are maintained and improved as a result of the changes rather than worsened, including during the critical transitional phase.
More on this subject will surely follow as the situation develops.
Apologies for the length of this letter.
Yours sincerely

David Whitcroft,
Liberal Democrat Surrey Heath Borough Councillor, Mytchett & Deepcut Ward

Kings to marry Tomlinscote - dowry is 12 Million pounds!

Update: Mr Ryles said that he had been incorrectly quoted and that he had said that the WHOLE site was worth £12 million apparently we are probably looking at more like 1/5 or 1/6 of that.  When he said that there was a chorus of dissent from the audience who claimed they couldn't have all miss heard.  His other the swimming pool is an interesting one, we went there 6-7 years ago regularly and it was very old then - I hear tell its actually leased to Farnborough Fins.


So finally we get to the crux of it - some of the Kings site will be sold off for 12 million pounds.  The Kings people present at the meeting must have been just thrilled to hear that their school is not economically viable in the future but Tomlinscote will take it over and pocket £12M.  Wonder why that was not mentioned at the Kings meeting?

Please both T and K parents send me your views on this evenings meetings - If you can write a meeting blog post send it to me.  I'm too tired / angry to write anything coherent at this point.

THEY think it is a done deal that is for sure - BUT please guys don't give up.


I had several parents feel this was so sewn up and SO WRONG that they wanted to contribute to a legal fighting fund.  We need to get organised have a meeting and elect a committee to deal with this - and soon.

tomlinscote.kings@gmail.com

Kings - Not "failing" but "improving" - by RR

I (Tomlinscote parent) also attended the one of the King’s meetings and can underwrite the comments made by Clare.

The whole thrust of the case for the merger can be summarised as

Kings is a failing school as proved by Ofsted and results.

Because it is failing not many parents want to send their children there.

There are fewer children in total coming through from Primary/ Junior schools with forecast numbers further reduced by a drop off in house building due to economic climate. So the numbers applying to Kings, Tomlinscote and Collingwood are further reduced.

There are forecast to be 120+ (from memory no handouts – which there should be) vacant spaces between the three schools in the coming years. So there are places for parents who do not choose Kings. Not many will be ‘forced’ to use Kings as in the past.

As a result Kings will not have sufficient intake to remain viable, hence the take-over of Kings by Tomlinscote.

The case rests on the assumption that low numbers at Kings make the merger inevitable as Kings will be too small to be viable and must be merged or closed.

The presenter uses the phrase failing school, or similar, repeatedly, but it’s not true. It was a failing school, or even a failed school, but now it’s an improving school. Staffing issues have been addressed, results are expected to improve and it is expected it will come out of special measures this academic year. Mr Ryles described the staff as excellent. Repeated use of negative terms embeds the notion of failure in peoples minds.

Given that it’s an improving school its OFSTED will improve as will the results, if that happens then more parents will choose Kings. Especially as it offers a different - smaller nurturing environment -education experience

One parent attempted to make this point and was repeatedly’ misunderstood’ by the speaker, who didn’t seem very keen to engage with this idea.

The numbers used to demonstrate the decline in demand for secondary places was unsubstantiated. The LEA must publish the details of how these numbers were derived. All sources of raw data must be made available.

down the PAN - Tina Carney

I was grateful that Ian and his wife Ursula were at the meeting to witness the passion of the Kings' s parents and staff. It is one big (used to be) happy family! It was also nice to know other Tomlinscote parents took the time to also attend – thank you. Hopefully it gave you an insight as to what to expect at your meetings on Wednesday. Forewarned is forearmed!

Kings is going down the pan because of PAN (Published Admissions Numbers – ie the maximum number of children a school can take in as a year group) - and b) less children around the Surrey Heath area. Michael Gove may be the person to tackle on altering the PAN numbers for each school and maybe reduce the catchment areas for each of the bigger two schools, but obviously I think it is even out of his reach to produce more kids to be put into the system!

I did raise the point at the K meeting as to why they only ever mention three schools in Surrey Heath? On paper we have four choices - although one isn't really a choice, but SCC pay into it. Gordons school is also a smaller secondary school in Surrey Heath and SCC can't get away from the fact that they pay money into it. Does anyone know how many day places are offered each year and how many students from the locality actually get a place, who hasn't had an older sibling in the residential part? Surrey are prepared to pay into an almost private smaller school - but not prepared to pay into a smaller establishment, which caters for students whose parents cannot afford the additional fees to attend the other small secondary school in the area .........although looking at some of the comments about the laptops – I’m not sure I could afford to send my child to Tomlinscote either! At the end of the day, if a fair comparison of numbers is to be made (statistics and all that) across Surrey Heath, we need to know the figures, for all the 'choices' available to parents of year 6 pupils. It may not come to anything but everything needs to be on the table to be analyzed! I note that a Kings-Gordons merger would not be an option!!

PJ (the man from SCC) insisted that many parents choose their school by only looking at the OFSTED report on line. To a certain extent that is true for the many parents who live in the catchment of a good all round school. However, that is also like saying that when you buy a house, (which is apparently one of the most important decisions of your life according to ‘To Buy or Not to Buy?’) you look at the estate agent’s blurb and say ‘I will have that one’. Brilliant on paper and in the pictures, but could be a great disappointment when you move if you hadn’t taken the time to take a closer look and make a visit or two. No-one does that, do they? Making the right choices of your child’s educational path, is just as important as buying a house. If you get the house wrong, ok you can move and maybe lose financially. If you get the child’s placement wrong, it’s not money, it is emotional and stressful for all. When I was choosing my daughter’s school I went to look at three schools – gave Gordons a miss – and immediately felt at home at Kings. I didn’t get the same feeling at Collingwood and we didn’t have the right postal code for Tomlinscote. To get more students into Kings, you have to get more people to come and look at it and see it in action. Don’t look at the measurements in the blurb, look for yourself and see if the windows are in the right places. Many negative comments are made about Kings from people who have not actually visited the school in any shape or form or refer back to when it was France Hill – even PJ brought that up last night!

Interestingly, no-one mentioned the traffic. I was half expecting the neighbours on Watchetts Road coming across to say they did not want an increase of traffic movement on their road.

My main concern was the lack of parents from Kings at the second meeting (Year 10 up). I can only think that many of them suppose that their own children will not be affected, as the major change will be in September 2012 and is therefore not a priority in the scheme of things. Kings 6th form is in its final year, totally closing this July, and so those parents would not feel a part of the process either. Having said that, one parent did say that her daughter was having more or less one to one lessons because of the fiasco last year. Thank you! Our ESL parents were also thin on the ground – maybe SCC should be having special meetings or producing translated paperwork to ensure that everyone understands exactly what is happening to our schools. I am hoping that SCC don’t think that, just because there weren’t a great numbers of parents at the meeting, the rest are in agreement with the merger. The parents who did attend made their points clearly and articulately, although PJ may have been articulate, his answers were wrapped in statistics – and we all know about statistic analysis!

All I can say is ‘Good Luck’ to the Tomlinscote parents. At Kings, we will continue to fight to keep our great small school - and at the end of the day – you want to keep your school smaller and great as well!