This video was produced by Jordan Bridge a Tomlinscote student who is very passionate about the merger not going ahead. In the video the chanting of "Keep Kings" by all students sums it up... but perhaps not as well as one Tomlinscote student who asked me "how can they try to take their school away?" There has been a lot of debate about the place of children within this campaign, worries that they might be seen to be being used by adults or "may not behave in an adult manner". After an initially shaky start on facebook (involving adults and children) I have been consistently amazed at the maturity of children during this campaign. Questions that hit right to the heart of the educational debate, in some ways their worries were significantly more on track than the adults as their primary focus was on their education and how this would affect their future lives. Rather than children being used for political ends I feel the process has been one of children genuinely wishing to engage in the democratic process of "freedom of speech". For teenagers self expression is a key part of their development and the quality of their response bodes well for the future. Dare I say the next generation is in a way getting a valuable lesson about involvement in important issues and "the big society" by engagement in a process that is so personal they cannot help but be involved.
| 
| 
| 
|
 | 
| ||
| |||
Monday, 13 June 2011
CAM’s Formal Response
CAM has engaged a firm of solicitors who have drafted CAM’s formal response to the consultation which will be sent to Surrey County Council on behalf of CAM, and which will also be sent to the Governing Body at Tomlinscote School.
The report is split into six sections:
Surrey County Council and the Governing Body of Tomlinscote School will be receiving this document from CAM this week. Once it has been issued we will be placing the full version on the blogsite.
CAM believe that this formal response will show the Governors of Tomlinscote that they must vote NO to the current proposal and that Surrey County Council cannot proceed with this consultation in the manner that it has been presented.
Louise Nicholas and Robert Raymont
Please note we still need to raise money for this ongoing and very important legal advice - please donate to our campaign.
The report is split into six sections:
- Introduction
- Government Guidance
- A system shaped by parents
- Standards
- Diversity
- Surplus places
- Expansion of successful and popular schools
- Impact on Community
- Community cohesion and race equality
- Travel and accessibility for all
- Consultation
- Failure to consult by Tomlinscote School
- Pre-determination
- Method of consultation
- Sufficiency of information
- Misleading information
- Further consultation
- Kings International College for Business and the Arts
- Pupil numbers
- Standards
- Travel
- Community cohesion and diversity
- Costs savings
- Tomlinscote School and Sixth Form Centre
- Impact of expansion on standards
- Cost
- Conclusion
The main areas that have been raised are:
Overall Points
- The consultation document is from County Council but it states that the Governing Body of Tomlinscote School will issue a joint statutory notice with Surrey County Council if the Governing Body approves the expansion. This is considered unlawful as the proposer, which is the Governing Body of Tomlinscote School, has not carried out the consultation. Tomlinscote School has not consulted with its parents and stakeholders.
- The consultation document does not make it clear that Tomlinscote will be obliged to issue a statutory notice relating to the acquisition of a new site (the Kings site). If notice is given without Tomlinscote carrying out an appropriate consultation as the proposer of the change it will be unlawful
Consultation Process Points
- Case law states that consultations should be carried out fairly and properly.
- There are elements of Pre-determination regarding the closure of Kings.
- There are certain legal implications regarding how and when parties were informed and which parties were involved
- There should be sufficient information to enable intelligent consideration of and intelligent response to the consultation
- The use of the “School Organisation in Surrey 2010-2020” document in verifying figures which is itself in draft form and being consulted on is misleading unless SCC have also predetermined the consultation on this document.
Government Guidance
- That Kings should not be closed as it is in a phase of improvement.
- There is a removal of school choice for parents. The LA has a duty to secure diversity in the provision of schools and to increase opportunities for parental choice.
- In relation to standards the government guidelines recommend changes which boost standards and opportunities for young people and the consultation does not address this for Tomlinscote students.
- The consultation fails to take into account diversity. The government’s vision is to create schools which offer excellence and choice where each school has its own ethos, sense of mission and a centre of excellence or specialist provision.
- There is no consideration within the consultation of how the Kings ethos and specialism will be protected. Closing Kings and expanding Tomlinscote does not appear to meet the guidelines required.
- The closure of Kings would represent a loss to the community and closure guidance focuses on the impact to the community which uses the Kings site heavily through afterschool sports facilities and the Beacon Church.
- There has been a failure to engage with and consider the Nepalese community who account for 22% of the Kings students.
- There are concerns that travel and accessibility have not been properly dealt with in relation to the LA’s duty to promote sustainable travel and transport to school.
- It is not sufficient to just examine surplus places when considering closing a school. Other factors such as extended journey times and community impact must be considered.
CAM believe that this formal response will show the Governors of Tomlinscote that they must vote NO to the current proposal and that Surrey County Council cannot proceed with this consultation in the manner that it has been presented.
Louise Nicholas and Robert Raymont
Please note we still need to raise money for this ongoing and very important legal advice - please donate to our campaign.
Is the proposed Solution Viable?
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.
CAM Curry Evening
Remember its still not too late to book for the next event on the 21st
see http://tomlinscote-kings.blogspot.com/2011/06/fabulous-cam-curry-fundraisers-on-8th.html
see http://tomlinscote-kings.blogspot.com/2011/06/fabulous-cam-curry-fundraisers-on-8th.html
Sunday, 12 June 2011
Krooner Park Drop In - Tuesday 14th June 1.00-10.30pm
Just a reminder that CAM will be holding a drop in session at Krooner Park, Camberley Football Club THIS TUESDAY 14th JUNE from 1.00 until 10.30pm. If you would like to come along and ask advice about the consultation forms we will be there to help you. If you want to come and find out more about CAM and the Academy option for Kings please come and join us. We look forward to seeing you.
Please find directions below
Please find directions below
- CAMBERLEY TOWN F.C., Krooner Park, Wilton Road, Camberley, Surrey. GU15 2QW
Surrey Heath Borough Council - meeting.
CAM WILL BE ATTENDING TUESDAYS COUNCIL MEETING AT SHBC
Louise Nicholas
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Cllr Rodney Bates <rodney.bates@surreyheath.gov.uk> wrote:
On Tuesday at 6.00pm members of CAM will be attending the Surrey Heath Borough Council meeting where there is an agenda item on the Tomlinscote Kings consultation. We have been writing to our individual councillors to raise our concerns and hope that you will be emailing them as well. We will be listening to the debate between councillors and will report back to you after the meeting. Each ward has its own Borough Councillors and if you would like to ask your councillor to raise a question we would recommend that you email them. No member of the public is allowed to speak at the meeting but it should be interesting to listen to the discussion.
Louise Nicholas
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Cllr Rodney Bates <rodney.bates@surreyheath.gov.uk> wrote:
Hi
I just wanted to check that you were aware that Surrey Heath Borough Council will be meeting on Tuesday evening (14th June) in order to consider our own response to the consultation.
This gives local borough councillors the opportunity to put across their views and make sure that a formal response is passed on to the county council.
The meeting is open to the public and will start at 6pm in the Council Chamber at Knoll Road. This is currently due to be the first item.
As this is an Executive Committee, only councillors can talk at the meeting and only the 7 members of the Executive can actually vote. However, this will at least give people the opportunity to listen to the discussion and what their local elected representatives are saying on this important issue.
Regards
Rodney Bates
Leader of the Opposition Group
A Commentary on the Solution Proposed by County.
The consultation document only puts forward one high level outline solution which it describes as a detailed solution:
The detailed proposal is to reorganise the school so that Key Stage 3 is based at the Watchetts Drive site and Key Stages 4 and 5 at the Tomlinscote Way site. It is proposed that this physical change takes effect from 1 September 2012
The consultation document contains no detail about the large split site school it proposes. For the proposal to be credible, and to show that it has been properly thought through, topics such as Specialisms, Curriculum, Tutor Groups, Teaching Continuity across sites and so on, must be addressed.
The consultation document does not even commit to this solution, it merely presents it as ‘The form a link between Tomlinscote and Kings International might take ‘.
The single greatest factor in delivering the transformation is leadership and management. The single greatest risk is leadership and management. It is not clear that the LEA, new head or governors have any experience of either creating or managing a large split site school. The Hay Group report also quotes the ‘obvious mistake’ of staffing senior leadership of the newly formed school with teachers from just one of the schools, this mistake would appear to have already been made.
There is considerable cost associated with implementing the proposal. Some cost items are identified in the consultation document, but they are not quantified and no funds are committed.
The document puts forward no alternatives of its own to closing Kings.
The detailed proposal is to reorganise the school so that Key Stage 3 is based at the Watchetts Drive site and Key Stages 4 and 5 at the Tomlinscote Way site. It is proposed that this physical change takes effect from 1 September 2012
The consultation document contains no detail about the large split site school it proposes. For the proposal to be credible, and to show that it has been properly thought through, topics such as Specialisms, Curriculum, Tutor Groups, Teaching Continuity across sites and so on, must be addressed.
The consultation document does not even commit to this solution, it merely presents it as ‘The form a link between Tomlinscote and Kings International might take ‘.
The single greatest factor in delivering the transformation is leadership and management. The single greatest risk is leadership and management. It is not clear that the LEA, new head or governors have any experience of either creating or managing a large split site school. The Hay Group report also quotes the ‘obvious mistake’ of staffing senior leadership of the newly formed school with teachers from just one of the schools, this mistake would appear to have already been made.
There is considerable cost associated with implementing the proposal. Some cost items are identified in the consultation document, but they are not quantified and no funds are committed.
The document puts forward no alternatives of its own to closing Kings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)