Governors Reorganisation Response May 2019 PDF File
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
The Pontypridd High School Pontypridd Schools Reorganisation A response from the Governing Body The documents being referred to include; Meeting ST ‘21 CENTURY SCHOOLS PROGRAMME – Proposals to improve on education provision in the greater Pontypridd area’ October (Report of the Chief Executive in discussion with the Cabinet member rd 3 , 2018 for education, Mrs J. Rosser) Document 1 Author(s) Andrea Richards, Head of 21st Century Schools and Julie Hadley, School Organisation Manager. st 2 Consultation 21 CENTURY SCHOOLS - ‘Consultation on the reorganisation of up to primary schools, secondary schools and sixth form provision in the January 31st, Pontypridd area 2019 Document Author(s) Local Authority Meeting ‘21ST CENTURY SCHOOLS PROGRAMME - PROPOSALS TO REORGANISE 3 on March PRIMARY SCHOOLS, SECONDARY SCHOOLS AND SIXTH FORM 21st, 2019 PROVISION IN THE GREATER PONTYPRIDD AREA’ (Report of the Chief Executive in discussion with the Cabinet member for education, Mrs J. Rosser) Document Author(s) Mrs Gaynor Davies Director of Education and Inclusion Services and Andrea Richards, Head of 21st Century Schools Context for this response On September 25th, 2018 a meeting was called at Clydach Vale where the reorganisation proposals were presented. As staff and Governors at PHS we were prepared for a meeting of this nature and its likely content given the changes elsewhere in RCT. Whilst we recognise that the LA are pursuing what they consider to be the best options whether that be financially or educationally, it was always going to be the case that CyC as an alternative Post-16 location would be challenged. However, the inclusion of BCS as another ‘centre of excellence’ was not anticipated and its strategic rationale remains unclear to us as school governors. It is the LA reasoning for BCS inclusion along with the manner in which this consultation process has been conducted that needs to be questioned further as part of this consultation process. We seek further clarification and your response to the following: 1. Why has a negative tone been maintained in documentation through this consultation process towards PHS and the PSF ? 2. Why is the analysis of data and resulting commentary about PHS and the PSF often inaccurate and misleading ? 3. Why is there a reference to PHS participation in the SCC programme and why is that commentary making unfair and misleading conclusions ? 4. We have certain aspects of the consultation process not followed the ‘School Organisation Code’ (2013) and included information that was not planned as part of the initial consultation ? 5. According to numerous RCT Officers, the main rationale for selecting BCS as a post- 16 centre for Pontypridd appears to be because it is a ‘better’ school. Can you clarify what you mean by a better school ? Can you make clear what were the criteria for choosing BCS as a centre for PHS students and post-16 education 6. We still question the rationale for choosing CyC as a ‘Centre of post-16 excellence’ for students from PHS and the PSF. Can you make clear how the LA will ensure that students from PHS will have an ‘excellent’ post-16 provision at CyC ? 7. Was the student voice activity with CyC students part of the formal consultation process ? Why were comments that clearly undermine staff and students at PHS included in the public report produced by the Director of Education (Document 3) ? 1. Why has a negative tone been maintained in documentation through this consultation towards PHS and the PSF ? It is our belief that the documents referred to are inherently biased towards BCS and CyC and as such cast a very negative view of provision and standards at PHS and the PSF. We fully accept that the author(s) would want to promote the proposals but this objective has too often been pursued through ‘unproven negative inference’ rather than through reference to fact. In response to this the Director comments (Document 3, page 14) that ‘It was not the intention to convey negativity towards any schools affected by this consultation. The language and terminology used in the consultation document are commentaries based on the interrogation of the data.’ It may well have been the case that there was no intention to convey negativity but we think otherwise. Surely as senior officers and after proof reading this would be clear as would the implications on staff and students at PHS ? The response refers to ‘commentaries based on the interrogation of data’. To that extent why is there no positive commentary at all in reference to either PHS or HHS when there is to BCS and CyC ? This is clearly leaving the reader to conclude negative thoughts about PHS and the PSF, making the reader believe that provision at BCS and CyC is ‘better’ than that at PHS. The term ‘better’ is an interesting one in itself. If as it seems the word ‘better’ is the differentiating factor, then what makes one school better than another ? It appears that when convenient the LA define better as a school which has a higher number of top grades which is educationally flawed at best 2. The interrogation of data and commentary about PHS and the PSF is often inaccurate and misleading If as the Director suggests, that the language and terminology used in the consultation document are commentaries based on the interrogation of the data then perhaps it is useful to look at the accuracy of that analysis. We believe there are a number of examples whereby the commentary included in the named documents is certainly not based on accurate analysis. Example 1 We believe misleading and inaccurate contextual information was given to Council members through an initial report (Document 1) regarding A Level standards at PHS and the PSF. Such commentary includes: From Document 1, paragraph 4.2 ‘The educational achievement and success at Key Stage 5 (in respect of the A Level results) of Hawthorn and Pontypridd High Schools are consistently below the Welsh averages and are amongst the lowest in RCT and Wales.’ From Document 1, paragraph 4.7 ‘The educational performance of the sixth forms has been mixed with two of the secondary schools (Pontypridd High and Hawthorn High ?) consistently being amongst the worst performing schools in respect of A Level performance’ From Document 3 (Minutes of meeting with PHS staff) ET - The LA is not saying that Pontypridd High School is a poor school. Bryncelynnog is improving and has consistently better results. These statements are inaccurate and misleading because they do not reflect actual outcomes at A Level when compared against different performance indicators. Comparative A Level outcomes in Year 13 L3 AWPS 3 A*/A 3 A*/C Pontypridd High 95.2 856 3.2 68.3 Bryncelynnog CS 98.6 670 5.6 34.7 RCT lowest 0 27.0 2015 RCT average 96.9 730 3.1 57.9 Wales average 96.9 799 7.9 68.1 Pontypridd High 100 928 5.9 64.7 Bryncelynnog CS 100 824 8.8 67.2 RCT lowest 0 40.2 2016 RCT average 97.0 765 4.0 65.2 Wales average 98.0 823 6.7 70.6 Pontypridd High 100 820 5.6 42.6 Bryncelynnog CS 94.3 788 18.9 52.8 RCT lowest 0 16.3 2017 RCT average 96.3 678 5.5 45.1 Wales average 97.1 731 10.5 54.7 Thorough and accurate analysis of this data which is shown in the table below reveals that: - In each of the 3 years reported in this consultation (2015-2017) PHS has exceeded the Wales averages in 50% of the performance indicators selected by the LA (6/12 in years 2015 to 2017) - Over the same period BCS exceeded the Wales averages in 50% of the PI’s, exactly the same as PHS. - Accurate analysis would not conclude from this that PHS is consistently below the Welsh averages and are amongst the lowest in RCT and Wales.’. - If PHS is in this position then so is BCS. Example 2 From Document 1, paragraph 4.2 ‘However, Bryncelynnog Comprehensive School is an improving school and has consistently performed above the Welsh average for A level provision.’ How can 50% of indicators as shown above be ‘consistently above’ when statements like ‘worst’ and ‘below’ are used to describe standards at PHS ? The LA seems to be looking for outcomes in different indicators which show BCS to be achieving higher standards, to be a better school. Negativity towards PHS here as the reference to BCS being an ‘improved school’ is not replicated for PHS where outcomes in 3 of the 4 indicators in 2018 also improved and in two instances were above the Welsh averages. In 2016, Estyn inspectors at BCS reported that ‘In the sixth form, the proportion of pupils achieving the level 3 threshold has been above the average for other similar schools in each of the last four years. The proportion of pupils achieving three passes at the highest A*/A grades at A level is broadly in line with the average for similar schools. However, performance in the average wider points score and the proportion of pupils achieving three passes at grades A*-C has been below the average for similar schools and below national averages in each of the last four years.’ In 2018 and 2019 Estyn continue to refer to outcomes at L3 and the AWPS when inspecting and reporting on progress. Whilst performance measures are changing post-16, we are unclear therefore why the LA seem to be reluctant to accept this indicator in relation to data from previous years and in doing so recognise the standards achieved by PHS and the PSF.