The next Coombe Road Action Group meeting will be on Wednesday 21st March at 7.30pm.
The meeting will be to discuss & agree planned objections to the adjudicator. Anyone that would like to input into the group objection should respond to Jane's email of 12 March or contact her via email: mauritius.queen@btopenworld.com
Hope to see you there.
Monday, 12 March 2007
Wednesday, 28 February 2007
So Much for Equal Opportunities or Choice in Education
So, the CF&S Committee decided to vote in favour of a new and socially divisive admissions system. Families in Coombe Road, Bevendean and Moulsecoomb are in a single catchment for Falmer School.
All the talk in the news today is about lotteries for popular schools in the city: Dorothy Stringer, Varndean, Blatchington Mill and Hove Park. Well, we will not even get the opportunity to enter those lotteries. We have lost the lottery already. We are second in the queue for the "good schools".
On the BBC news story Schools to give places by lottery we are told, "Brighton and Hove says the new system will give more children a better chance of getting into popular schools." I nearly spat out my breakfast when I read this. More middle-class children perhaps, but children from Moulsecoomb and Bevendean while have no chance of accessing any of the most popular schools. Not even a glimmer.
So you'll understand that when Pat Hawkes comes out with another platitude, "Brighton and Hove is a city of haves and have-nots and the have-nots have been left out", I gave up trying to eat my breakfast altogether and my partner had to head for the shower as he was covered in orange juice.
So what do we have now under the new admissions system. Do we all get an equal opportunity to access the "best schools" in the city? Or do some children only get a chance to access the least popular ones? Ding, dong! Yes, we have another group of "have nots" who are less likely to complain because they are used to being in this situation.
Some people may want to send their child to Falmer. It might be the best school for them. Others may not. The choice is no longer there for those of us in this single catchment.
The criteria for naming a school a "good school" or a "worse school" are set by the government. The league tables and Ofsted reports that offer parents, as consumers, guides when making their choices are supposed to help us make a choice in favour of good schools. Falmer School has been improving partly because they have taken children from an extended catchment incorporating more parents who are enthusiastic about education, but this new admissions system will ensure that the school is cut-off at the knees as the catchment from which they take shrinks. Pat Hawkes, don't try to sell me the idea that all schools in Brighton & Hove are "good schools". They are not equally good, and it does not take much to ruin a school completely. Falmer's future is uncertain.
This is now a two-tier education system, except the boundaries between those that will receive a good education, and those that will receive an education of a lower standard, are very clearly drawn.
All the children will receive an education which is less comprehensive, whether middle-class or working class. The catchments are drawn roughly along class divides. They will meet fewer peers from different backgrounds to themselves. They should learn from experience how other people live, and learn to be tolerant of other people's values, but also to test their own values against others. Let's actively counter prejudice and ignorance, rather than teach it in citizenship classes.
I would love Pat Hawkes and Brighton & Hove Council to eat their own words - then perhaps I would be able to eat my breakfast. I'm disgusted at the result of this review. It is disgraceful that politics have been allowed to influence such an important decision. The May council elections are far more significant than the future of our children. Politicians with a stake in the outcome should not be allowed to make a decision on schools admissions if this is what happens. The Greens and Labour groups both dismissed members of Children, Families & Schools Committee because they were having doubts about the decision. I'm sure they will gain votes in the marginal seats, which incidentally gain access to the popular schools now. They may be surprised how many votes they lose in previous Labour strongholds.
I can say with confidence that the Council have failed to make a fairer admissions system. So much for choice and opportunity. So much for diversity in a comprehensive system. The combination of elements that Brighton & Hove have employed results in "haves and have nots", a two-tier system of education that will deny many children in poorer areas the fantastic education they deserve.
All the talk in the news today is about lotteries for popular schools in the city: Dorothy Stringer, Varndean, Blatchington Mill and Hove Park. Well, we will not even get the opportunity to enter those lotteries. We have lost the lottery already. We are second in the queue for the "good schools".
On the BBC news story Schools to give places by lottery we are told, "Brighton and Hove says the new system will give more children a better chance of getting into popular schools." I nearly spat out my breakfast when I read this. More middle-class children perhaps, but children from Moulsecoomb and Bevendean while have no chance of accessing any of the most popular schools. Not even a glimmer.
So you'll understand that when Pat Hawkes comes out with another platitude, "Brighton and Hove is a city of haves and have-nots and the have-nots have been left out", I gave up trying to eat my breakfast altogether and my partner had to head for the shower as he was covered in orange juice.
So what do we have now under the new admissions system. Do we all get an equal opportunity to access the "best schools" in the city? Or do some children only get a chance to access the least popular ones? Ding, dong! Yes, we have another group of "have nots" who are less likely to complain because they are used to being in this situation.
Some people may want to send their child to Falmer. It might be the best school for them. Others may not. The choice is no longer there for those of us in this single catchment.
The criteria for naming a school a "good school" or a "worse school" are set by the government. The league tables and Ofsted reports that offer parents, as consumers, guides when making their choices are supposed to help us make a choice in favour of good schools. Falmer School has been improving partly because they have taken children from an extended catchment incorporating more parents who are enthusiastic about education, but this new admissions system will ensure that the school is cut-off at the knees as the catchment from which they take shrinks. Pat Hawkes, don't try to sell me the idea that all schools in Brighton & Hove are "good schools". They are not equally good, and it does not take much to ruin a school completely. Falmer's future is uncertain.
This is now a two-tier education system, except the boundaries between those that will receive a good education, and those that will receive an education of a lower standard, are very clearly drawn.
All the children will receive an education which is less comprehensive, whether middle-class or working class. The catchments are drawn roughly along class divides. They will meet fewer peers from different backgrounds to themselves. They should learn from experience how other people live, and learn to be tolerant of other people's values, but also to test their own values against others. Let's actively counter prejudice and ignorance, rather than teach it in citizenship classes.
I would love Pat Hawkes and Brighton & Hove Council to eat their own words - then perhaps I would be able to eat my breakfast. I'm disgusted at the result of this review. It is disgraceful that politics have been allowed to influence such an important decision. The May council elections are far more significant than the future of our children. Politicians with a stake in the outcome should not be allowed to make a decision on schools admissions if this is what happens. The Greens and Labour groups both dismissed members of Children, Families & Schools Committee because they were having doubts about the decision. I'm sure they will gain votes in the marginal seats, which incidentally gain access to the popular schools now. They may be surprised how many votes they lose in previous Labour strongholds.
I can say with confidence that the Council have failed to make a fairer admissions system. So much for choice and opportunity. So much for diversity in a comprehensive system. The combination of elements that Brighton & Hove have employed results in "haves and have nots", a two-tier system of education that will deny many children in poorer areas the fantastic education they deserve.
Tuesday, 27 February 2007
***Notice: Demo at CF&S Decision Meeting Tonight!***
Parents will be gathering to demonstrate for and against the proposals outside the Children, Families & Schools Committee Meeting this evening at Brighton Town Hall from 4pm. The meeting starts at 5pm. You can see the meeting, but will need to go to the Council reception and get yourself an entry ticket. You should do this as soon as you arrive.
Please note, the meeting as at BRIGHTON TOWN HALL in BARTHOLEMEW SQUARE. (Not at Hove Town Hall as it was last time.)
Bring whistles, banners, and your children if they are up to it. This is your last chance to get your voice heard. If you do not take responsiblity yourselves and speak out, no one else can for you.
Clearly, I would like the vote to go against the proposals, as I feel that they are unfair to my area, Moulsecoomb, Bevendean and Coombe Road, but also to many other areas in the city. They will destroy the lovely community that has developed here. I don't think anyone has really heard how they will affect us. The mantra of "doing what's best for the whole city" seems like a way of closing ears to our concerns, rather than actually recognising that the city is made up of communities and each community's interests must be heard properly in order for the right decision that is "best for the city as a whole" to be made.
I find it unbelievable that people accuse Juliet McCaffery of thinking just of her area. She listened to families from this area and responded to them, she spoke to people from Patcham and Portslade. She debated with us; she questioned our stance. We had to persuade her and it took time. Moreover, there is no shame in being persuaded. She certainly did not sell out or act selfishly for her own Ward. She actually listened to the parts of the city that she had not heard from. And then, after all that, she made the difficult decision of breaking with the Labour group. I don't think anyone would choose to do that unless they were driven by a strong moral imperative. It is not an easy thing to do. Since the CF&S meeting on 2nd February she has been denied the opportunity by the Council to speak publicly and defend her decision. Judgement has been passed without proper trial.
I still do not think that the concerns of many of the parents living in the Longhill catchment, or the catchment for Portslade Community College have been heard. Not only that, but Patcham parents have also had a raw deal. All these areas will suffer from lack of choice.
We have never had an easy entry into secondary schools here. It has always been a lottery for our children, but at least there was a chance of a choice. That will be denied us under the new system. If these proposals are voted in, our families will assume the burden as our choice is removed and our local school is denied anything near a comprehensive intake. We won't have the lottery, but we won't have the choice either - many of our parents want the choice more. Even then, comprehensive intakes are the most vital thing: if Falmer were given a more comprehensive intake, we might have been prepared to compromise. We are supporting Falmer, we have fought for a broader intake for the school all along; we want the school to have a chance to build on its "improving" status.
We are fed the supposed panacea of the Academy, and you will forgive us if we are skeptical. New buildings are all very well, but we are most concerned about opportunities for our children to learn and prepare for adulthood and the demands of the workplace. We want to know that the school will not be a Secondary Modern in Academy clothing. The emphasis on work related learning is all very well, but when the government wants 50% of teenagers to go to university, then you know that the job market will begin to require a degree as standard, and to study for degrees you need a good academic education. Vocational training is right in some cases, but can also narrow young people's opportunities rather than expand them. There are frequently articles in the press about our young people's failure to provide the workplace with basic skills (communication and numeracy) or transferable skills (languages, IT skills, analytical skills for example). Vocational training is all very well, but, I would argue, should not be the foundation for a child's education.
In addition, a real comprehensive education, in which children are exposed to a variety of people from different backgrounds, will give them confidence when they grow up to build good relationships with people from all walks of life. I regard this as equally important as it can counter the intolerance and prejudice born of ignorance, and open up new horizons for our young people. That is why I want a more comprehensive Falmer, and that is why the whole city should fight for a more comprehensive admissions system.
If you are against the SAR proposals, don't give up on the city yet. Give it one more chance to make the right decision. Get yourself down to Brighton Town Hall today at 4pm and scream your lungs out for your community, and for those areas that will lose out on diversity at their local school and choice!
Please note, the meeting as at BRIGHTON TOWN HALL in BARTHOLEMEW SQUARE. (Not at Hove Town Hall as it was last time.)
Bring whistles, banners, and your children if they are up to it. This is your last chance to get your voice heard. If you do not take responsiblity yourselves and speak out, no one else can for you.
Clearly, I would like the vote to go against the proposals, as I feel that they are unfair to my area, Moulsecoomb, Bevendean and Coombe Road, but also to many other areas in the city. They will destroy the lovely community that has developed here. I don't think anyone has really heard how they will affect us. The mantra of "doing what's best for the whole city" seems like a way of closing ears to our concerns, rather than actually recognising that the city is made up of communities and each community's interests must be heard properly in order for the right decision that is "best for the city as a whole" to be made.
I find it unbelievable that people accuse Juliet McCaffery of thinking just of her area. She listened to families from this area and responded to them, she spoke to people from Patcham and Portslade. She debated with us; she questioned our stance. We had to persuade her and it took time. Moreover, there is no shame in being persuaded. She certainly did not sell out or act selfishly for her own Ward. She actually listened to the parts of the city that she had not heard from. And then, after all that, she made the difficult decision of breaking with the Labour group. I don't think anyone would choose to do that unless they were driven by a strong moral imperative. It is not an easy thing to do. Since the CF&S meeting on 2nd February she has been denied the opportunity by the Council to speak publicly and defend her decision. Judgement has been passed without proper trial.
I still do not think that the concerns of many of the parents living in the Longhill catchment, or the catchment for Portslade Community College have been heard. Not only that, but Patcham parents have also had a raw deal. All these areas will suffer from lack of choice.
We have never had an easy entry into secondary schools here. It has always been a lottery for our children, but at least there was a chance of a choice. That will be denied us under the new system. If these proposals are voted in, our families will assume the burden as our choice is removed and our local school is denied anything near a comprehensive intake. We won't have the lottery, but we won't have the choice either - many of our parents want the choice more. Even then, comprehensive intakes are the most vital thing: if Falmer were given a more comprehensive intake, we might have been prepared to compromise. We are supporting Falmer, we have fought for a broader intake for the school all along; we want the school to have a chance to build on its "improving" status.
We are fed the supposed panacea of the Academy, and you will forgive us if we are skeptical. New buildings are all very well, but we are most concerned about opportunities for our children to learn and prepare for adulthood and the demands of the workplace. We want to know that the school will not be a Secondary Modern in Academy clothing. The emphasis on work related learning is all very well, but when the government wants 50% of teenagers to go to university, then you know that the job market will begin to require a degree as standard, and to study for degrees you need a good academic education. Vocational training is right in some cases, but can also narrow young people's opportunities rather than expand them. There are frequently articles in the press about our young people's failure to provide the workplace with basic skills (communication and numeracy) or transferable skills (languages, IT skills, analytical skills for example). Vocational training is all very well, but, I would argue, should not be the foundation for a child's education.
In addition, a real comprehensive education, in which children are exposed to a variety of people from different backgrounds, will give them confidence when they grow up to build good relationships with people from all walks of life. I regard this as equally important as it can counter the intolerance and prejudice born of ignorance, and open up new horizons for our young people. That is why I want a more comprehensive Falmer, and that is why the whole city should fight for a more comprehensive admissions system.
If you are against the SAR proposals, don't give up on the city yet. Give it one more chance to make the right decision. Get yourself down to Brighton Town Hall today at 4pm and scream your lungs out for your community, and for those areas that will lose out on diversity at their local school and choice!
Wednesday, 21 February 2007
Notice: Meeting for Coombe Road Schools parents tomorrow night
There will be an important meeting at Coombe Road School tomorrow night, Thursday 22nd, at 7pm in the Main Hall.
Stuart McLaughlin, the head of Falmer, will be there to discuss the changes to admissions, and to talk about the proposed Falmer Academy.
All parents should attend as this is vital information about the education of your children. I would add that this meeting is only for parents at our school.
Please come and support the local community, the school, and your children!
Stuart McLaughlin, the head of Falmer, will be there to discuss the changes to admissions, and to talk about the proposed Falmer Academy.
All parents should attend as this is vital information about the education of your children. I would add that this meeting is only for parents at our school.
Please come and support the local community, the school, and your children!
Dorothy Stringer meeting a success
Over 400 parents turned out for the Schools4Communities Dorothy Stringer meeting last night. The meeting ran until 10.15pm and many people in the audience had a good opportunity to ask questions.
Several councillors, including Kevin Allen (Labour, Preston Park), Ken Norman (Conservative, Withdean), Anne Norman (Conservative, Withdean), Vanessa Brown (Conservative, Stanford), Jayne Bennett (Independent, Stanford) and Pat Drake (Conservative, Withdean) were present. Juliet McCaffery, another Labour councillor for Preston Park, was present and joked that she was finally being given a chance to speak publically about the SAR - she was prevented from speaking at the Overview and Scrutiny Committee last week by her Labour colleague and Chair of that committee, Simon Battle. When she was introduced there was a spontaneous round of applause for her principled stand on the issue.
Anne Meadows could not attend, but she sent her apologies, and Cate Miller read the speech she gave to CF&S Committee on 2nd February.
MYTH BUSTING
What also became very clear was that so many parents thought that the new admissions system would not affect children in lower years. Children in years 4, 3, 2 and 1 will all be affected by the new admissions proposals!!!
Parents in what will be the Dorothy Stringer and Varndean catchment were also shocked to hear that the catchment will be oversubscribed and by upwards of 95 children. When you take into account the priority given to out-of-catchment siblings and to children with statements of Special Educational Needs (SEN), this looks like it will be an even bigger problem. Many of them did not realize that so many children could be sent out of catchment as a result of the lottery. Nor did they realize that the lottery would involve all the children in the catchment, not just a few.
LONGHILL MUM AIRED HER VIEWS
It was also good to meet a mum from Longhill. She spoke to the hall about the situation they face: that they will have a difficult intake with high levels of Special Educational Needs (SEN) and that the school will also be oversubscribed.
She was concerned that they would not have adequate funding and resources to support these children properly - children previously split into schools across the city and doing well under those circumstances. Her other fear was the the school would ultimately fail and that the city would have another COMART on their hands.
As places for pupils are at capacity the city cannot afford to lose another school. Their parents may have to go through a lottery that in Rottingdean they only found out how the proposals will affect them about 2 weeks ago. It's a dismally familiar story.
HEAD OF DOROTHY STRINGER SPOKE OUT AGAINST THE PROPOSALS
Trevor Allen expressed his concerns about the new proposals. He argued that as the schools are at capacity - that there is no surplus of places - that this would cause inflexibility and lead to failure in a fixed catchment system.
He was concerned that parts of the city have been set against each other by the SAR, and argued that what the city really needs - especially with so many new developments springing up - is a new school. He thought the Argus should front a petition from the City of Brighton & Hove to be sent to Whitehall requesting, as a special case, that we be granted funds urgently for the building of a new school in the city. He thought that this would help resolve some of the issues, and also bring the city together again.
What was also interesting was that the Working Group had been informed by council officials that the head teachers of Varndean and Stringer were being consulted on certain issues:
If Dorothy Stringer and Varndean did attain Trust School status, it would send the whole proposed fixed catchment system into turmoil.
He also suggested that David Hawker might find a way out of this problem by deciding to lead and drive a campaign for a new school for Brighton & Hove all the way to Whitehall.
Other speakers included ex-member of the Working Group, Martin Powell, who spoke eloquently about COMART and Kevin Allen who was concerned that the CofE representative on Scrutiny was being abused by councillors not happy with the outcome of that meeting (the return of the proposals to CF&S next Tuesday). Vanessa Brown also spoke briefly to offer her support to the campaign against the SAR.
SCHOOLS4COMMUNITIES SPEAKERS
Members of Schools4Communities spoke, including the Chair, Mark Bannister, Robert Eastwood, Paul Fellingham, and press spokesperson, Tracey-Ann Ross.
Mark Bannister gave a well-reasoned overview of the anti-proposals position, and set out some of the significant concerns for areas across the city including: Moulsecoomb, Bevendean, Coombe Road, Preston Park, Fiveways and Balfour, Patcham, Withdean and Westdene, parts of Hove, Hangleton, Portslade, Woodingdean and Rottingdean.
In addition, Robert Eastwood set out the future of the campaign. S4C are prepared to take the campaign all the way to Judicial Review. In the meantime, they will be providing more advice to parents on they difference they can personally make at the S4C website here.
The Argus have published an article on the meeting here.
Several councillors, including Kevin Allen (Labour, Preston Park), Ken Norman (Conservative, Withdean), Anne Norman (Conservative, Withdean), Vanessa Brown (Conservative, Stanford), Jayne Bennett (Independent, Stanford) and Pat Drake (Conservative, Withdean) were present. Juliet McCaffery, another Labour councillor for Preston Park, was present and joked that she was finally being given a chance to speak publically about the SAR - she was prevented from speaking at the Overview and Scrutiny Committee last week by her Labour colleague and Chair of that committee, Simon Battle. When she was introduced there was a spontaneous round of applause for her principled stand on the issue.
Anne Meadows could not attend, but she sent her apologies, and Cate Miller read the speech she gave to CF&S Committee on 2nd February.
MYTH BUSTING
What also became very clear was that so many parents thought that the new admissions system would not affect children in lower years. Children in years 4, 3, 2 and 1 will all be affected by the new admissions proposals!!!
Parents in what will be the Dorothy Stringer and Varndean catchment were also shocked to hear that the catchment will be oversubscribed and by upwards of 95 children. When you take into account the priority given to out-of-catchment siblings and to children with statements of Special Educational Needs (SEN), this looks like it will be an even bigger problem. Many of them did not realize that so many children could be sent out of catchment as a result of the lottery. Nor did they realize that the lottery would involve all the children in the catchment, not just a few.
LONGHILL MUM AIRED HER VIEWS
It was also good to meet a mum from Longhill. She spoke to the hall about the situation they face: that they will have a difficult intake with high levels of Special Educational Needs (SEN) and that the school will also be oversubscribed.
She was concerned that they would not have adequate funding and resources to support these children properly - children previously split into schools across the city and doing well under those circumstances. Her other fear was the the school would ultimately fail and that the city would have another COMART on their hands.
As places for pupils are at capacity the city cannot afford to lose another school. Their parents may have to go through a lottery that in Rottingdean they only found out how the proposals will affect them about 2 weeks ago. It's a dismally familiar story.
HEAD OF DOROTHY STRINGER SPOKE OUT AGAINST THE PROPOSALS
Trevor Allen expressed his concerns about the new proposals. He argued that as the schools are at capacity - that there is no surplus of places - that this would cause inflexibility and lead to failure in a fixed catchment system.
He was concerned that parts of the city have been set against each other by the SAR, and argued that what the city really needs - especially with so many new developments springing up - is a new school. He thought the Argus should front a petition from the City of Brighton & Hove to be sent to Whitehall requesting, as a special case, that we be granted funds urgently for the building of a new school in the city. He thought that this would help resolve some of the issues, and also bring the city together again.
What was also interesting was that the Working Group had been informed by council officials that the head teachers of Varndean and Stringer were being consulted on certain issues:
- That the heads had been asked about adding classes to Dorothy Stringer and Varndean.
- That they had agreed not to use the 10% places that could be assigned to children based on aptitude.
- That they were talking to the heads about these schools not opting for Trust School status - which means they can set their own admissions criteria.
If Dorothy Stringer and Varndean did attain Trust School status, it would send the whole proposed fixed catchment system into turmoil.
He also suggested that David Hawker might find a way out of this problem by deciding to lead and drive a campaign for a new school for Brighton & Hove all the way to Whitehall.
Other speakers included ex-member of the Working Group, Martin Powell, who spoke eloquently about COMART and Kevin Allen who was concerned that the CofE representative on Scrutiny was being abused by councillors not happy with the outcome of that meeting (the return of the proposals to CF&S next Tuesday). Vanessa Brown also spoke briefly to offer her support to the campaign against the SAR.
SCHOOLS4COMMUNITIES SPEAKERS
Members of Schools4Communities spoke, including the Chair, Mark Bannister, Robert Eastwood, Paul Fellingham, and press spokesperson, Tracey-Ann Ross.
Mark Bannister gave a well-reasoned overview of the anti-proposals position, and set out some of the significant concerns for areas across the city including: Moulsecoomb, Bevendean, Coombe Road, Preston Park, Fiveways and Balfour, Patcham, Withdean and Westdene, parts of Hove, Hangleton, Portslade, Woodingdean and Rottingdean.
In addition, Robert Eastwood set out the future of the campaign. S4C are prepared to take the campaign all the way to Judicial Review. In the meantime, they will be providing more advice to parents on they difference they can personally make at the S4C website here.
The Argus have published an article on the meeting here.
Monday, 19 February 2007
Notice: Vital Meeting at Dorothy Stringer Tue 20th Feb 7.30pm
There will be a Schools4Communities meeting tomorrow night, Tuesday 20th February, at Dorothy Stringer School, to discuss the Secondary Admissions Review.
All Parents - that's from all areas - are welcome.
***This meeting is now doubly important as the Scrutiny Committee has returned the decision to the Children, Family and Schools Committee for another vote!***
All Parents - that's from all areas - are welcome.
- This is a chance to put forward your views on the whole process and the outcomes.
- This is also a chance for you to get involved in the struggle for a fair change to the distance measurement system.
- You might want to find out who schools4communities are and what they stand for.
- Or you may simply want to ensure that you stay informed in future by joining the Schools4Communities email list.
***This meeting is now doubly important as the Scrutiny Committee has returned the decision to the Children, Family and Schools Committee for another vote!***
Technorati Tags: CF&S Committee, Meetings, Notice, SAR, Secondary Admissions Review
Prophetic Quote from ex-head of COMART
Jill Clough, the ex-headteacher of COMART School, wrote a book about her experiences called Why State Schools Fail: And What We Can Do to Fix Them (published by UIT Cambridge, 2005).
Someone has sent me the following quote:
"He [the Director of Schools] added that the Council had agreed to a more just admissions process, which might eventually help the school to recruit more students; but there would be no public discussion of the proposals before the local elections in May 2003, and another year of consultation before any decision would be made. There were many marginal seats and so the controlling Labour Party was afraid of provoking debate which might lose them.
"My feeling of exhaustion as I left the meeting was compounded by the thought that if the future of the children was to be manipulated, yet again, by political expediency, my work would be futile." (p.129)
This "more just" admissions process was presumably the move to distance measurement, which would have meant more QP kids going to Comart, had it remained open. But the delay helped to sink the school.
Is it ringing alarm bells? Are you thinking of Cllr McCaffery's dismissal from the Children, Family and Schools Committee by the Labour Group? Perhaps it is time for a change at the Council?
Someone has sent me the following quote:
"He [the Director of Schools] added that the Council had agreed to a more just admissions process, which might eventually help the school to recruit more students; but there would be no public discussion of the proposals before the local elections in May 2003, and another year of consultation before any decision would be made. There were many marginal seats and so the controlling Labour Party was afraid of provoking debate which might lose them.
"My feeling of exhaustion as I left the meeting was compounded by the thought that if the future of the children was to be manipulated, yet again, by political expediency, my work would be futile." (p.129)
This "more just" admissions process was presumably the move to distance measurement, which would have meant more QP kids going to Comart, had it remained open. But the delay helped to sink the school.
Is it ringing alarm bells? Are you thinking of Cllr McCaffery's dismissal from the Children, Family and Schools Committee by the Labour Group? Perhaps it is time for a change at the Council?
Technorati Tags: Brighton & Hove Council, CF&S Committee, McCaffery, SAR, Secondary Admissions Review
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)