OnTheWight asked Dave Miller, a parent, CEC parent council member, and former education scrutiny panel member if he’d be prepared to share this personal recollection of last night’s Cowes Enterprise College meeting. Happily he agreed (Thanks Dave!) – His caveat was to point out that it was produced on the night of the meeting from brief personal notes, and memory, as our request had not been seen until after the meeting. In his own words – Ed.
Independently chaired by Alan Marriott from the County Press, the long-called-for meeting attracted approximately 150 people, including several IW Council Executive members, councillors and a few governors in addition to parents.
The venue had been prepared with seating for several hundred attendees, with some friendly stewards (some of which were recognised as council sports centre staff) and strategically placed partitions to guide attendees into the main inspiration area (main hall) where printed ‘Ground Rules’ were placed on seats. Media coverage included a camera crew from BBC South Today, who compiled a prompt report, aired on Monday night.
Those speaking
Joining Alan on the stage were Richard Priest (IWC Executive member), Ian Stephens (IWC leader), Rachael Fidler (Chair of Governors), John Coughlan (Hampshire & IW Director of Children’s Services), and two further officers, Steve Cottrell (School Improvement) and Steve Clow (Property Services). School leadership members were observed in the back row of the audience in the top row of the tiered seating (Rebecca Pearce, James Stewart and Nigel Mason).
Following a brief introduction by Alan, Richard Priest gave an extensive introduction, majoring on wanting to improve the students’ experience in the education system, and attainment outcomes. (A predicted IW attainment figure for 2014 was stated to be up 8% to 58% – understood to relate to the benchmark 5 GCSEs A* to C inc. English & maths). He stated that he was committed to making the right decisions, and address the inherited building deficiencies. The remainder of the ‘top table’ then introduced themselves and their roles, with the most useful contributions provided by the two Hampshire officers.
Those not there
Alan advised that others had been invited, David Pugh (who had earlier made a statement to the County Press), Steve Beynon (work commitments), Stuart Love (work commitments), and Dave Burbage (could offer little – disclosure constrained).
A statement was made by Geoff Lumley that David Pugh had offered to attend if the LA agreed the release of certain evidence, and Mark Chiverton subsequently advised that Janet Newton would attend a professionally chaired meeting, again subject to certain documents being made available. Later reference was also made to Davina Fiore (IWC Monitoring Officer) with respect to her role in activities, particularly the investigation of the then-suspended officers.
Meandering debate
An ordered structure to the open forum subject areas was initially suggested by the meeting chair, but the forum drifted between numerous subject areas.
Only about 20 questions were posed in the available time and, pertinently, some questions were preceded by statements that if the responses were less political and verbose, then we could make greater progress, and that parental questions were valued more than political gesturing.
What went wrong?
Unsurprisingly, the audience were not particularly enlightened during the evening, although numerous opinions were articulated, frustrations with confidentiality agreements were expressed, and possibly a few preconceptions dispelled.
Mark Chiverton also identified that the IWC employed Project Manager for the building project was made redundant by the IWC at an early stage.
It would appear that without full disclosure of large amounts of information, a valid consensus of informed opinions is unlikely. The achievability, and indeed merits, of this will undoubtedly be debated further on other future occasions.
Audience members also made statements about current roles being undertaken by the former Chief Executive, and the two suspended officers.
Question from the chair
In response to a question posed by Alan Marriott (apparently being a pre-submitted question) regarding the role of Keith Simmonds (former IWC Assistant Director Children and Young People, and later contracted consultant) Rachael Fidler believed he strongly contributed to the rectification negotiations, and was contracted following a rigorous selection process by the governing body.
What needs to be done?
The details were in the paper released, and reported upon, on Friday.
It was apparent that there was a lack of documentation and plans for the building, and intrusive investigations were required in a number of areas. Health & Safety aspects, poor ventilation, and awful acoustics were cited.
There was one suggestion to concentrate on the main building works and sell off the old school site for development. It was noted that the sports pitches, synthetic pitch (MUGA), and other works were part of the external funding agreement, and the former sports hall and other building were urgently needed, including the undertaking of exams in the sports hall, given the open-plan design of the main building.
The need to mitigate the potential disruption to teaching and learning during the works was highlighted. Timescales were not yet clear, although the paper cited a 15 month figure.
Will the resultant building be fit for purpose?
The building was claimed to be of ‘unusual’ design, with, small classrooms, vast open spaces, and a designed capacity (~1400 students) far greater than is currently utilised (nearer 1000 students).
The words ‘vanity’ and ‘dream’ were used in the context of the original design brief.
Impact to other projects
Richard Priest recognised the potential impact to other capital projects on the Island, including other school capital projects.
John Coughlan clarified the difference between capital and revenue (DSG) funding. Negotiations were continuing with the EFA/government regarding financial support.
School Improvement, Restructuring, and Parental Engagement
Although there was an attempt to discuss only building related aspects, a good number of parents validly pointed out that there was not a provided meeting for other aspects of parental concern such as the recent student protest, the vote of no confidence in the principal (which Mark Chiverton said has “not been taken lightly”), proposed staff restructure and SEN provision. (A parental meeting scheduled for 24/04/14 was cancelled on 04/04/14, the day of the student protest, and has not yet been rearranged).
Steve Cottrell offered to support such a meeting, however Rachael Fidler initially alluded to parental engagement only at the time of academy sponsor consultation, although this position appeared to change.
One parent robustly pointed out the consultation was due to end this Friday, before a meeting was anticipated, and it was separately pointed out that the statement of considering parental input as part of the consultation appeared contradictory to a statement made at a recent Parent Council meeting which advised that parents were not consultees in the staff restructure process.
Dave Miller (happy to be contacted at [email protected]) As an individual, not speaking on behalf of the CEC Parent Council
CEC Parent Council information and minutes available online (Draft minutes from the most recent meeting last week should be uploaded shortly)
