OnTheWight always welcomes a Letter to the Editor to share with our readers – unsurprisingly they don’t always reflect the views of this publication. If you have something you’d like to share, get in touch and of course, your considered comments are welcome below.
This from Nick Binfield, on behalf of Save Brading School. Below Nick’s letter is a response from Councillor Jonathan Bacon. Ed
I wish to respond to the article that has been published by Jonathon Bacon, cabinet member for education. I have no desire to take aim personally at Mr Bacon, I do believe he is motivated to improve the education of young people on the Isle of Wight for which he should be applauded.
I do however have concerns surrounding his statement where he warns of false information in the debate around school closures.
“I’d hope that people can feel they can trust the process because it is being led with the absolute intent of improving educational standards, our SEN provision.”
I’m sorry Mr Bacon there is a widespread lack of confidence in these proposals from many sections of the community and these are as follows:
No academies consulted?
Since Mr Bacon’s article was published, an admission that no academies were consulted for closure.
This is despite there being provision for closing academies by mutual consent published in January 2023 by His Majesty’s Government.
Look at whole estate, not just low hanging fruit
If you want to substantially improve the education provision on the Island you must look at the whole estate, not just the low hanging fruit of Local Authority Schools.
Why was the option of Academy closures by mutual consent not explored at all?
Abandon proposals now
This proposal needs to be abandoned until primary schools all can be included and a true level playing field established in order to establish strategically valid conclusions.
Furthermore in establishing the planning areas for the document the council has again not referenced the government guidance in which it states:
“It is recommended that PAs for primary schools contain a minimum of 4 schools but ideally contain 6 or more schools, unless there are exceptional circumstances.”
Trust in the document reduced
Could the Isle of Wight council please explain why it has ignored these guidance principles especially in relation to: Ryde Rural and East Cowes.
By not doing so again the Isle of Wight council again reduces trust in its document and as such this proposal must be withdrawn and reconsidered following the best practice guidelines.
Statutory guidance
In the Statutory guidance on closing schools there is a whole section on the closure of rural schools it states:
“In formulating any closure proposals under this section in relation to a rural primary school, proposers must have regard to:
- the likely effect of the discontinuance of the school on the local community;
- the availability, and likely cost to the local authority, of transport to other schools;
- any increase in the use of motor vehicles which is likely to result from the discontinuance of the school, and the likely effects of any such increase; and
- any alternatives to the discontinuance of the school.
Proposers, for all rural closures, in addition to the above, should also provide evidence to show they have carefully considered alternatives to closure including:
- conversion to academy status and joining a multi-academy trust; federation with another local school;
- the scope for an extended school to provide local community services and facilities (e.g. childcare facilities, family and adult learning, healthcare, community internet access);
- the availability, and likely cost to parents, of transport to other schools;
- whether the proposal will result in unreasonably long journey times;
- the size of the school and whether it puts the children at an educational disadvantage e.g. in terms of breadth of curriculum or resources available;
- the overall and long term impact on local people and the community of the closure of the school and of the loss of the building as a community facility.”
Again in the Isle of Wight council’s document there is no evidence that any of the above have been considered.
There is much an extended school could offer
In relation to Brading there is much an extended school could offer or indeed the possibility of a federation with other small schools in the East Wight area.
However again the council runs contrary to its own guidance when seeking to close a larger school with a wider curriculum and resources, in favour of smaller schools with the opposite.
Attempt to save schools in certain areas at the expense of Brading
The government statutory guidance is clear, what is less clear is why the Isle of Wight council appear to have ignored it in an attempt to save schools in certain areas at the expense of Brading.
I do sincerely believe Mr Bacon has the best interests of Island children at heart. However this can only be realised when the council uses a level playing field to take a full strategic view as well as following the statutory and non statutory guidance that to date it seems not to have followed.
Councillor Jonathan Bacon shares his response to Nick Binfield’s letter. Ed
Dear Nick
My attention has just been drawn to the letter you have submitted to OnTheWight.
You have answered your own point in respect of Academies. As has been made clear in the consultation meetings so far, and as you say, mutual consent is required to close or alter the PAN at an Academy. That mutual consent does not exist so at that point the local authority becomes powerless. As confirmed to you personally though, we have approached Westminster about this problem.
The Planning Area document stands only as Guidance. In some areas, particularly those with unique geography, such as the Island, it cannot be adhered to. In any event, as has also been made clear, the exercise was and is being approached as a whole Island exercise. The Planning Areas are merely a useful way to present data.
We are following the rules in relation to Rural Schools. Many Island schools fall into this category so we are more than aware of the requirements in this regard.
As has also been made clear at the Consultation meetings so far, we welcome alternative proposals. We are aware of several in the pipeline as things stand.
Jonathan
