children and teachers on grass

‘Confused to as why governors not behind parents’ – Protest over school closure

Around 30 parents and children held a protest outside the gates at Yarmouth Primary School yesterday (Thursday) — demanding their school remains open.

In a letter to parents, governors said they had ‘reluctantly’ agreed to moving the school to Freshwater following ‘frank conversations’ and ‘a very painful meeting’ with Isle of Wight Council officers.

At the protest, arranged by Keep Yarmouth School in Yarmouth action group, some parents said they had only just heard the news.

“Destroying a really good, stable school “
One concerned mum said:

“I don’t know what to say. I am just devastated.

“This is destroying a really good, stable school on the chance of getting government money — but there is no assurance of it.”

Future remains uncertain
The future of primary schools in the West Wight — All Saints, Yarmouth, Freshwater, Shalfleet, Brighstone and St Saviour’s — remains uncertain, as the council has said it plans to close one school to reduce the number of surplus places.

Speaking at the protest, two families said they had relocated so their children could attend Yarmouth.

Parent: Confused why governors not behind parents
Alexander Wright, with his daughter Juno, who had moved from Fishbourne, said:

“If they do move the school, Juno will have to go to Northwood, which is ridiculous.

“I am confused to as why the governors are not entirely behind the parents. It makes no sense at all.”

Council has power to decide
Following a legal challenge in the summer, which saw the plans halted, the council told governors they had two main commitments — to retain a school in Freshwater and close one school in the wider region.

In their letter, governors said it was made clear to them that, ‘ultimately, the council had the power to decide the future of all the schools.’

Parent: “This is the least effective option “
One parent said:

“We want to try and save Yarmouth for the families.

“The council could do something which would be more effective and protect the future for the rest of the children. This is the least effective option and it is going to be absolutely damaging to Yarmouth.

“We don’t know what would be next. Why take a good school and move it down there just to save it? It is wrong, completely wrong.”

Brading: “The governors can do what they want”
At yesterday’s meeting of the council’s policy and scrutiny committee for children’s services, education and skills, cabinet member, Cllr Paul Brading, said about the letter:

“A paper is still being worked on. I can not comment on what I haven’t seen.

“I did not expect the news to be in the public domain but the governors can do what they want.”

A paper on the future of West Wight schools is due to be brought before the next cabinet meeting.

Advertisement
Subscribe
Email updates?
0 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
BigEars
20, October 2010 4:17 pm

The PFI is a trojan horse that we should be wary of.

No.5
Reply to  BigEars
20, October 2010 4:39 pm

totally against this policy..all it has done/will do is allowed the council to get away with its negligence on the maintanance front.
It will lead to even more cuts in budgets elsewhere because they have been using the cash for highways maintance on other things and they simply be handing that budget in it entirety to the PFI companies

Flomax Relief
Reply to  No.5
20, October 2010 4:50 pm

Having worked for and been made redundant from a PFI firm after it spent (for ‘Spent’ read ‘Wasted’) all the money employing people from India who have never worked in construction in the UK or on giving all the senior management nice cars,and had to go into administration, ANY PFI scheme is a real worry. I am also concerned that the IWC do not have a good… Read more »

Squeaky
20, October 2010 5:50 pm

The key words here may be that they will ‘work to see how these projects can be delivered affordably.’ To my eyes this suggests a clear get out. All the government need do in future weeks and months is claim that our PFI could not be delivered affordably so they have decided to scrap it. In that case we would have spent millions on something that never… Read more »

No.5
Reply to  Squeaky
20, October 2010 7:33 pm

meanwhile thay pay a deptartment in excess of £300,000 PA to deal with PFI matters (not that its achieved much)

Through the key hole
20, October 2010 6:50 pm

How those Goons who run this Council ever imagined the government would back this P.F.I.scheme for the Island I will never know.My advice get out as soon as possible don’t waste any more Tax payers money.

Chris
20, October 2010 10:18 pm

Good news…for lawyers.

James Arrow
21, October 2010 12:22 am

Told you so. They were warned about PFI, we told them. We said it would cost a packet and we will still be paying for it in years to come with the next deficit.We told ’em, they would not listen. They are goons – and dingbats even.

Ron
Reply to  James Arrow
21, October 2010 9:50 pm

I am amazed and saddened that so many people can condem something that can only be good for this Island. This is free money to the island – a grant, not a loan!! Its a bit like winning the lottery and saying I’m not taking the money!!

Squeaky
21, October 2010 10:02 pm

It’s not a grant it’s a loan. The repayments will cripple us. All of us want better roads, PFI schemes are the government equivalent of credit cards at extortionate rates of interest.

I deal in facts
Reply to  Squeaky
21, October 2010 10:59 pm

Squeaky

You are talking rubbish. It is not a loan. It is a grant that the Council does not have to repay. Like so many people on this blog you are blind to the truth.

intentionally blank
Reply to  I deal in facts
21, October 2010 11:02 pm

i thought the council had to commit to paying their entire roads maintainence budget every year… hardly free money.

If you seriously beleive anything is free in this world, you are deluded. You dont get owt for nowt.

No.5
Reply to  I deal in facts
21, October 2010 11:24 pm

are you crazy….it will cost us the councils budget for highway maintance (11 million) every year for the duration of the contract (20 Years)

The council has never spent this entire budget on the roads..the avergae being about 6 million..the difference being used on ‘other things’…these ‘other things’ will now either not be paid for or will find their money from somewhere else.

Either way…WE PAY

romeantique
21, October 2010 11:03 pm

“This is free money to the island – a grant, not a loan!! Its a bit like winning the lottery and saying I’m not taking the money!!”

Those Tories certainly have succeeded in pulling the wool over your eyes Ron. To think you criticise Labours fiscal policy and then come out with this.

Nibbles
24, October 2010 7:06 pm

For gods sake i wish people would read up on the pfi before stating a load of codswallop. The PFI is a grant and the council will not pay a penny of the actual pfi back. As part of the deal though, the budget that the council has each year for highway maintenance has to also be paid into the pot. So the council although tied to… Read more »

Squeaky
24, October 2010 7:16 pm

Nibbles, if this goes ahead the total spent on the PFI from IWC income each year will far exceed the total spent in the past twenty years. Where will the present mob and future councilllors find this money? I think the asnwer is obvious, cuts and rises.

No.5
Reply to  Squeaky
24, October 2010 8:45 pm

The council has never spent more than 6.5 million of its highways budget of the 11 Million pot…. The council will pay a penny…..11 Million of them. They also employ a team to manage these PFI claims at a cost in excess of £300,000 in wages. And what do we get…roads that council should have been maintaining properly for the last 20 years brought up to scratch… Read more »

ebod
23, November 2010 2:12 pm

Monbiot explains PFI pretty well: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/22/pfi-private-finance-refuse-debt

Did we hear back from Nibbles/Ron/I deal in facts?

reCaptcha Error: grecaptcha is not defined