Southend-on-Sea Borough Council Agenda Item No. Report of Director of Children and Learning to The Cabinet and all Members of the Council on 22nd November 2005
Report prepared by: Alastair Robertson and Margaret Doran
Secondary School Reorganisation Children and Learning Scrutiny – Executive Councillor: Councillor Carr A Part I Public Agenda Item
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 To report on the outcomes of the public consultation to determine the future arrangements for Thorpe Bay School and Prittlewell Technology College, in order to secure the best educational outcomes for young people at the schools, and for the future generation of young people in Southend.
1.2 To recommend the issue of statutory notices for the closure of Prittlewell Technology College and the establishment of a Fresh Start school on the Prittlewell site.
1.3 To confirm the Council’s commitment to close Thorpe Bay School on 31st August 2007, and to propose a further report in January 2006 to consider an innovative and exciting new type of educational provision which would enable the retention of educational provision on the Thorpe Bay site from September 2007.
2. Recommendations
Prittlewell Technology College
2.1 That statutory notices be published on:
a) the closure of Prittlewell Technology College on 31st August 2006, and the opening of a new Fresh Start community school on the Prittlewell site on 1st September 2006;
b) the establishment of a sixth form at the new school on the Prittlewell site with effect from September 2008, which will be part of a consortium of providers established within Southend;
c) the admission number of the new school on the Prittlewell site being 196 per year from September 2006;
d) the admission criteria for the new school on the Prittlewell site being that currently applicable at Prittlewell Technology College;
e) the catchment area of the new school on the Prittlewell site for September 2006 being that of the existing catchment area of Prittlewell Technology College, pending a revision of secondary school catchment areas for September 2007.
2.2 That the Governing Body of the new school be supported in working towards specialist status in sport and a vocational specialism related to tourism.
Secondary School Reorganisation Nov 05 Page 1 of 9 Report Final 16/11/2005 DCL015
2.3 The Council undertake a study relating to both school and community use to enable more effective use of the space on the Prittlewell site occupied by the Chase Sports and Fitness Centre.
2.4 That a shadow Temporary Governing Body be established without delay for the Fresh Start school on the Prittlewell site, and that early decisions are taken on the appointment of the Headteacher and Deputy Headteachers in the light of the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) staffing regulations.
2.5 That the features of a full service school, in line with the Every Child Matters framework, be pursued for the new educational provision on the Prittlewell site.
2.6 That the Council discuss with the shadow Temporary Governing Body a name for the new school, and that a further report be made.
2.7 That continued discussions be held with Eastwood High School about an expansion at Eastwood High School or a review of the catchments areas, or both.
2.8 That the Council:
a) recommend to the Temporary Governing Body that they should undertake a thorough review of the existing staffing to ensure a good education is provided and that every effort be made to secure posts for existing staff; b) provide pay protection for 3 years from 31st August, 2006 for staff remaining within the school not otherwise covered by existing protection arrangements.
Thorpe Bay School
2.9 That Thorpe Bay School closes on 31st August 2007.
2.10 That a further report be submitted to Cabinet in January 2006, with detailed proposals on the new educational provision on the Thorpe Bay site from September 2007, linked to the new developments currently being considered by Prospects College.
2.11 That the new educational provision will be in line with the Government’s Schools White Paper “Higher Standards, Better Schools for All”, for example through the possible establishment of a self governing Trust which will support the involvement of partners to develop the ethos of the school, raise standards and provide an appropriate curriculum.
2.12 That the features of a full service school, in line with the Every Child Matters framework, be pursued for the new educational provision on the Thorpe Bay site.
2.13 That Thorpe Bay School continues to admit pupils in September 2006, and that pupils transfer to the new education provision proposed to be established on the Thorpe Bay site from September 2007.
3. Background
3.1 The Council is seeking to secure the best possible educational opportunities for young people affected by the two secondary schools in special measures and to secure improvements in the performance of children and young people in Southend.
3.2 Thorpe Bay School has been in special measures for over six years, the longest period of any school in the country. Prittlewell Technology College has been in special measures for 18 months. The new White Paper published by central Government in October 2005, likely to become legislation in 2006, sets out that Councils should be considering alternative arrangements if a school has been in special measures for more than one year.
3.3 Both Thorpe Bay School and Prittlewell Technology College have made improvements over the last year. Prittlewell Technology College was subject to a short notice inspection on 9th/10th November, 2005 and Thorpe Bay School will be subject to a full OfSTED inspection in the latter part of the autumn term 2005. The report from the Prittlewell Technology College acknowledged satisfactory progress but the school remains in special measures.
Secondary School Reorganisation Nov 05 Page 2 of 9 Report Final 16/11/2005 DCL015
3.4 Following the consultation undertaken over summer 2005, it was agreed at the Special Meeting of Council on 6th October, 2005 to go out to a further public consultation on the closure of Thorpe Bay School and Prittlewell Technology College and the opening of a new school on the Prittlewell site. The consultation proposed complete closure of the Thorpe Bay School with the offering of school places to current Thorpe Bay School students at a range of schools. The consultation proposal separated the issues relating to the two schools. The recommendations from the previous report are attached as Appendix 1.
3.5 A consultation document was issued to a wide range of stakeholders (see Appendix 2) and consultation meetings were held with staff, young people, parents and governors. Discussions were also held with trade unions and with secondary headteachers.
4. Outcomes of the consultation
Summary or responses 4.1 Appendices 3 and 4 detail the outcomes of the formal consultation to which there were 469 responses from the 7404 consultation forms issued – a 6% return (previously 14%). Of the 1500 consultation papers sent to parents of secondary aged pupils there were 163 responses - an 11% return (previously 25%). Of the 5338 consultation papers sent to parents of pupils of primary aged pupils there were 99 responses - a 2% return (previously 5%).
4.2 The responses from parents of secondary aged pupils were split as follows.
Prittlewell Technology College parents 47 Thorpe Bay School parents 35 Cecil Jones High School parents 47 Other secondary school parents 34
4.3 The majority of the responses from Cecil Jones High School parents were received in the last week of the consultation following the meeting for parents held at Cecil Jones High School on 1st, November 2005. Their objections, supported by a petition with 293 signatures, centred on incorrect assumptions that Cecil Jones College (lower school) would be relocated to the Thorpe Bay site, and that the site in Wentworth Road would be sold for housing development.
4.4 The main points being raised by the respondents to question 4 on the consultation document (see Appendix 4) which gave the opportunity for general comments, related to concerns about:
• how transition to other schools will be managed; • disruption to education of pupils, particularly at GCSE; • loss of school places and restriction of parental choice; • catchment areas being too big and disadvantaging some pupils; • travelling time, cost and safety; • extra pressure on already full schools.
4.5 In addition to the formal consultation paper a number of objections were received by petition and letter. This included a petition with 2640 signatures organised by parents at Thorpe Bay objecting to the closure of Thorpe Bay School on the grounds of disruption to the education and well being of pupils. A further 155 replies were received from Thorpe Bay parents highlighting the need to give the school more time to come out of special measures. There was a consultation meeting with the School Council of Thorpe Bay with approximately 50 young people of all ages in attendance. The young people were particularly keen to say that the school had improved; they wanted more time for the school to get out of special measures and emphasised that they had faith in the school. A summary of the discussion is contained in appendix 12.
4.6 The number of responses and the concerns being raised in this second consultation indicates a greater degree of acceptance of the broad thrust of the proposals at Prittlewell Technology College, with greater concern now about proposals for Thorpe Bay School. It should be remembered that the consultation in relation to Thorpe Bay concentrated on the nature of the closure and the proposed arrangements for the future education of the students. The Council had already made it clear that they intended to pursue the closure of the school.
Secondary School Reorganisation Nov 05 Page 3 of 9 Report Final 16/11/2005 DCL015
4.7 Copies of all the responses have been put into a single document and have been made available to all Members of the Council in the Members’ Lounge.
Meetings with staff 4.8 Minutes of the meetings with staff were completed and summaries are attached as Appendix 5 (Thorpe Bay) and Appendix 7 (Prittlewell). Staff at Thorpe Bay School were opposed to the proposals and their concerns focused on the disruption to the education of pupils currently at the school. Staff were also concerned about their own futures with the loss of Transfer of Undertakings Protection of Employment (TUPE), and felt the school needed more time to come out of special measures. Staff at Prittlewell were not fully supportive of the proposals and sought resolution of two key issues namely, the proposed size of the new school, and the uncertainty for staff.
Meetings with parents 4.9 Minutes of the meetings with parents were completed and summaries are attached as Appendix 6 (Thorpe Bay) and Appendix 8 (Prittlewell). The full minutes have been made available on the Council’s website. Parents at Thorpe Bay were totally opposed to the proposals citing the disruption to the pupils’ education, dispersal of pupils and the good progress made by the school under the leadership of the Headteacher as their principal concerns. Parents at Prittlewell were concerned at the proposed size of the school and the disruption to staffing, particularly at senior level.
Responses from the Governing Bodies 4.10 Meetings were also held with the Governing Body of Prittlewell Technology College and with representatives of the Governing Body of Thorpe Bay School. The full responses from those two Governing Bodies are attached as Appendix 9 (Thorpe Bay) and Appendix 10 (Prittlewell). The Governing Body of Thorpe Bay School opposes the revised proposals, but have put forward a further development of their ideas from the first consultation which is considered further later in this report. The Governing Body of Prittlewell Technology College supports most of the proposals, but does not support the proposed expansion of the school and the enlarged catchment area. The Governors expressed concerns about the need for continuity of staff, particularly in relation to the posts of Headteacher and Deputy Headteachers.
Other responses 4.11 In discussion with trade unions there were concerns about the future of staff employed at Thorpe Bay School and the dispersal of the children. These highlighted that the revised proposals removed the previous TUPE rights and could result in staff redundancies.
4.12 Views were obtained from representatives of the Southend-on-Sea Secondary Heads Association (SoSHA). Whilst acknowledging the need for changes and the difficult decisions that the Council had to take, the headteachers were opposed to the closure of Thorpe Bay School. Their concern focussed on the ramifications of reducing the number of non-selective schools, particularly the pressures which would be placed on the remaining non-selective schools in managing inclusion effectively. They also raised concerns at the difficulties envisaged in dispersal of Thorpe Bay pupils, both for the pupils concerned and the receiving schools. They did not suggest alternative proposals.
4.13 The response from the Labour Party supported the proposals for Prittlewell but opposed the proposals in relation to Thorpe Bay School. As an alternative at Thorpe Bay they suggested a Fresh start proposal linked to Prospects College to provide new opportunities for 14 to 19 year olds.
4.14 The Alliance Southend response totally opposed the closure of Thorpe Bay School and registered concerns over the proposed intake number for the school on the Prittlewell site. As an alternative they proposed that Thorpe Bay be given the time needed for Ofsted to carry out a full inspection and to abide by their decision and recommendation at that time.
5. Proposals relating to Prittlewell Technology College
Establishment of a new school 5.1 The revised proposals for Prittlewell have met with only limited opposition compared to the first consultation, and indeed a measure of support, subject to issues relating to the proposed size of
Secondary School Reorganisation Nov 05 Page 4 of 9 Report Final 16/11/2005 DCL015
the school and the continuity of staff. Although the balance of views from the consultation would prefer that the school is not closed, the low response compared to the previous consultation would indicate greater acceptance of the proposals.
5.2 The school has made progress over the last 18 months under the current Headteacher and there has been added capacity for improvement with the appointment of two new Deputy Headteachers from September 2005. It is hoped that the school would be removed from special measures over this academic year as a result of the current and ongoing progress, but a Fresh Start arrangement would provide investment to enhance the curriculum offer and improve outcomes for young people. This will provide the foundation to enable the school to compete on a more level footing with all other non selective schools in Southend and secure its longer term future. The recent inspection on 9th and 10th November, 2005 found the school’s progress, since going into special measures and since the last monitoring visit, to be satisfactory.
5.3 The Government Schools White Paper ‘Higher Standards, Better Schools for All’, published in October, 2005, outlined the need for Councils to be taking action over schools which have remained in special measures for over a year. Although the school has made welcomed progress, the proposals for a Fresh Start school provide an opportunity for the establishment of a sixth form to enable the school to operate on a more level playing field with the other non selective schools in Southend. The Fresh Start arrangements will also remove the school from Special Measures and access substantial Fresh Start funding from the DfES.
5.4 There is potential to further develop greater integrated working with other services and agencies and collaboration with other schools and business partners to maximise support for the children and young people of Prittlewell in line with the Every Child Matters framework. It is hoped that the model of a full service school be established with multi-agency working to support children, families and communities.
5.5 It is recommended that statutory notices be published to close Prittlewell Technology College on 31st August, 2006 and to open as a new Fresh Start community school on the Prittlewell site on 1st September, 2006.
Post 16 provision 5.6 The Governing Body, supported by officers, feel that the provision for post 16 pupils is an important part of the future development of the school if it is to operate on a level playing field with other non selective schools. However, the Learning and Skills Council have stressed the need for the proposed sixth form to develop as part of the consortium arrangements for the provision for post 16 pupils across all schools and other providers in Southend.
5.7 Whilst the principle of a sixth form is still considered essential to the proposals it is recommended that this be deferred until September 2008. This will enable the consortium arrangements to be fully established within Southend and the building project to be completed.
Specialist status and curriculum provision 5.8 The DfES has confirmed that a new school cannot immediately become a specialist school, although it can be working towards that status. It is recommended that the Governing Body of the new school be encouraged to work towards specialist status in sport and a vocational specialism related to tourism.
5.9 The Headteacher of Prittlewell Technology College has already commenced changes to the curriculum for September 2006 and this work would be continued.
Admission Number, Catchment Area and Admission criteria 5.10 The consultation had proposed that the new school initially have an admission number of 280 falling then to 224. The continuation of provision in the east of the town, as considered later in the report, would reduce the need for the new school to meet the continued demand for secondary school places which will exist in 2007 and 2008, and eliminate the necessity for an increase in the size of the school.
5.11 It is therefore recommended that the admission number for the new school be 196 per year which compares to 192 currently, and would remain at 7 forms of entry. This assumes 28 per year group which is consistent with most other non selective schools. This would only marginally increase provision in the west of the town to cater for the problems within Eastwood
Secondary School Reorganisation Nov 05 Page 5 of 9 Report Final 16/11/2005 DCL015
Zone B. There would therefore need to be an expansion at Eastwood High School or a review of the catchment areas, or both, and it is recommended that discussions continue with Eastwood High School.
5.12 As set out in the previous report to Cabinet on 4th October, 2005 it is not now possible to change school catchment areas for September 2006. It is recommended that the catchment area of the new school for September 2006 be that of the existing Prittlewell Technology College, pending a revision of secondary school catchment areas for September 2007. Consultation on catchment area changes was considered by the Admissions Forum at their meeting on 11th October, 2005 and will be reviewed again at their meeting in December 2005 in the light of the recommendations in this report.
5.13 It is recommended that the admission criteria for the new school on the Prittlewell site be that currently applicable at Prittlewell Technology College. The proposed criteria are set out in Appendix 11.
Community use and the Chase Centre 5.14 In the development of a new community school, with post 16 provision, on the Prittlewell Technology College site, opportunities will be taken to review and maximise the effective use of all existing accommodation, including the Chase Sports and Fitness Centre. A study will be undertaken in regard to the future operation of the dual use of the Chase Sports and Fitness Centre with the objective of enhancing opportunities for both the community school and continued community use. This vision is consistent with the expectation that the community school would become an extended school under new Government proposals, providing greater access to facilities, such as the proposed all weather playing surface for community use. This approach may also assist meeting the Council’s Sport and Leisure Strategy vision. ‘A Borough where the resources available for sport and leisure are optimised through successful planning and partnership working resulting in high quality sports and leisure services and facilities which promote healthy lifestyles and lifelong learning and which local people are able to and want to access.’ A further report would need to be submitted on this issue following further discussions with the Leisure, Culture and Amenity Services Department, the ‘Creating Leisure Trust’ (the current contractor), Sport England and the new Temporary Governing Body.
Timescale and Next Steps 5.15 The proposed timescale for the establishment of the new Fresh Start school at Prittlewell would be: Cabinet 22nd November, 2005 Scrutiny and Council 24th November, 2005 Publication of Statutory Notices 28th November, 2005 Shadow Temporary Governing Body December 2005 Expiry of Statutory Notices December 2005 School Organisation Committee January 2006 Temporary Governing Body January 2006 Appointment of Headteacher January/February 2006
5.16 The School Organisation Committee would only be necessary if there were objections to the proposals. If not, the decisions of the Council, as set out in the statutory notices would stand.
Temporary Governing Body 5.17 The appointment of the new Headteacher would be determined by the Temporary Governing Body. In order to ensure that a decision could be made as soon as possible, and in line with normal procedure where a new school is being established within a short timescale, it is recommended that a shadow Temporary Governing Body be established straight away. This shadow Temporary Governing Body would then transform into the Temporary Governing Body immediately a formal decision is made, and would run alongside the Governing Body for the existing school. A new substantive Governing Body for the new school would be appointed by the end of December 2006.
5.18 An initial task for the shadow Temporary Governing Body would be the consideration of a new name for the school. It is recommended that discussions are held on this with the shadow Temporary Governing Body, and that a further report be made.
Secondary School Reorganisation Nov 05 Page 6 of 9 Report Final 16/11/2005 DCL015
Building issues 5.19 The admission number of 196 would eliminate the need for a major expansion of the school, apart from the need for post 16 provision. There would still be the need for additional investment to improve existing facilities, but to a lesser extent than proposed originally. The DfES have confirmed the availability of funding through the Fresh Start programme. The building programme of £4 million would be targeted at post 16 provision and improvements to the existing infrastructure to support the revised curriculum.
5.20 The shadow Temporary Governing Body will be consulted on the building developments for the school. Any new build would not be completed before September 2008, which would support the proposal to defer the introduction of post 16 provision until that date, and avoid the use of temporary accommodation.
Staffing issues 5.21 A major concern as part of the consultation was the possible lack of continuity in staffing in the light of the progress the school is currently making to get out of special measures. There was particular concern about the position of the Headteacher, who began her headship in an acting capacity in September 2004 and was appointed to the substantive post from April 2005, and the positions of the two Deputy Headteachers who were appointed from September 2005.
5.22 It is normal in a new school for Headteacher and Deputy Headteacher posts to be advertised nationally, but under the DfES staffing regulations, the shadow Temporary Governing Body would not necessarily have to do so. The shadow temporary Governing Body will need to consider the case for a national advertisement, and take early decisions on the appointment of the Headteacher and Deputy Headteachers in the light of the DfES staffing regulations, and confirm those decisions immediately the School Organisation Committee has reached a decision, or at the end of the statutory notice period if there are no objections.
5.23 It is recommended that:
a) the Temporary Governing Body should undertake a thorough review of the existing staffing to ensure a good education is provided and that every effort be made to secure posts for existing staff; b) the Council provide pay protection for 3 years from 31st August, 2006 for staff remaining within the school not otherwise covered by existing protection arrangements.
6. Proposals in relation to Thorpe Bay School
Closure of Thorpe Bay School 6.1 Given the length of time the school has been in special measures, and the concern about the future viability of the school, the consultation was undertaken on the basis of a closure being inevitable. The Governing Body of the school has accepted this. However, there was little support in the consultation for the proposals that pupils should be allocated school places at a number of schools over a phased period.
6.2 The DfES has confirmed that it expects the Council to proceed with the closure of Thorpe Bay School. They do recognise the difficulties in meeting the needs of current pupils and would accept a closure at Thorpe Bay by August 2007 at the latest.
6.3 It is therefore recommended that the Council confirm its intention to close Thorpe Bay School on 31st August, 2007.
Arrangements for continued education on the Thorpe Bay site 6.4 It was accepted in the report to Cabinet in October 2005 that the Thorpe Bay site be retained for educational purposes.
6.5 The report to Cabinet on 4th October 2005 highlighted the proposal put forward by Thorpe Bay Governing Body of a model of a school in the eastern part of the town offering a different type of provision i.e. splitting ages 11-13 and ages 14-19 with the latter providing a more vocational provision. The October 2005 report recognised that this proposal had value and that this thinking could inform future developments, but that a new school on its own would be unviable. However, during the October consultation period Council officers and representatives of the
Secondary School Reorganisation Nov 05 Page 7 of 9 Report Final 16/11/2005 DCL015
Governing Body of Thorpe Bay School have been in discussion with Prospects College and other partners, about the possibility of working together to retain educational provision on the Thorpe Bay site which would offer exciting possibilities for both existing and future pupils.
6.6 The proposed educational provision would be in line with the Government’s Schools White Paper “Higher Standards, Better Schools for All”, for example through the possible establishment of a self governing Trust which will support the involvement of partners to develop the ethos of the school, raise standards and provide an appropriate curriculum.
6.7 As part of the development of the Thorpe Bay site it is hoped that the model of a full service school be established with multi-agency working to support children, families and communities.
6.8 The Council is seeking an extra 6 weeks to work up these proposals more fully to present a joined up approach with partners to secure improved outcomes for all children and young people. It is recommended that a further report be submitted to Cabinet in January 2006, with detailed proposals on the new educational provision on the Thorpe Bay site from September 2007, linked to the new developments currently being considered by Prospects College.
Commitment from Prospects College 6.9 Prospects College is a well established training provider serving Southend and South East Essex. It has a very good reputation and a commitment to the provision of quality education and training. The Chief Executive and Board have welcomed the linking of their own new development with the opportunity to provide a much broader vision for the young people of Southend.
Provision for existing and future pupils 6.10 The continuation of education on the Thorpe Bay site would mean that parents who have expressed a preference for a year 7 place in Thorpe Bay School for September 2006 can continue to have those preferences honoured. All pupils currently in the school will continue their education in Thorpe Bay School for the academic year 2006 – 07 and it is proposed that they would transfer into the proposed new educational provision on the Thorpe Bay site from September 2007 with continuity of curriculum provision as necessary.
Commitment to existing staff at Thorpe Bay School 6.11 It is recognised that given the commitment to close Thorpe Bay School, there is concern by staff about their future employment. Any continued uncertainty may result in staff finding other employment, undermining the progress being made at the school. Under the new proposals staff at Thorpe Bay School could be entitled under the Transfer of Undertakings Protection of Employment (TUPE) to be transferred to the new educational provision on the Thorpe Bay site from September 2007.
Timescale and Next Steps 6.12 The proposed next steps would be a report to Cabinet in January 2006 on the development of the proposals as outlined above.
7. Ensuring that no school goes back to special measures
7.1 To ensure that no school goes back into special measures and that all schools secure improved outcomes for young people, greater collaboration across schools will be encouraged. There are many very good examples of collaboration across schools in the Borough e.g. Excellence Cluster; 14 – 19 strategy. There is potential to further develop collaboration, particularly in non selective schools, in relation to the Every Child Matters framework in terms of working on a model of multi-agency working with children, families and the wider community. There is also potential to develop a collaborative model of quality assurance across all schools. Discussion has already commenced with secondary Headteachers.
8. Summary if proposals implemented
Prittlewell Technology College
8.1 Statutory Notices will be issued to propose that the existing school be closed on 31st August 2006 and a new Fresh Start community school be opened on 1st September, 2006.
Secondary School Reorganisation Nov 05 Page 8 of 9 Report Final 16/11/2005 DCL015
8.2 The new school will have a changed curriculum from September 2006, and post 16 provision and new investment through the DfES Fresh Start programme from September 2008.
8.3 The catchment area and admission criteria will mirror that of the current Prittlewell Technology College with only a slight increase in the admission number.
8.4 A shadow Temporary Governing Body will be established without delay and will be able to make key decisions on the appointment of the Headteacher and Deputy Headteachers.
Thorpe Bay School
8.5 Thorpe Bay School will close on 31st August 2007.
8.6 A further report will be submitted to Cabinet in January 2006, with detailed proposals on the new educational provision on the Thorpe Bay site from September 2007, linked to the new developments currently being considered by Prospects College.
8.7 Thorpe Bay School will continue to admit pupils in September 2006, and all pupils will transfer to the new education provision proposed to be established on the Thorpe Bay site from September 2007.
9. Background Papers
9.1 Cabinet 19th July 2005 - Secondary School Reorganisation.
9.2 Council 28th July 2005 – Secondary School Reorganisation.
9.3 Cabinet 4th October 2005 – Secondary School Reorganisation.
9.4 DfES staffing guidance under section 35(8) and 36(8) of the Education Act 2002.
9.5 All responses received to the consultation.
10. Appendices
10.1 Appendix 1 – Recommendations of the Cabinet report of 4th October agreed at a Special meeting of the Council on 6th October 2005.
10.2 Appendix 2 – List of those consulted on the Secondary Reorganisation.
10.3 Appendix 3 – Summary of the responses to the 3 specific questions on the public consultation.
10.4 Appendix 4 – Key points raised in response to question 4 on the public consultation
10.5 Appendix 5 – Summary of the meeting with Thorpe Bay School staff.
10.6 Appendix 6 – Summary of the meeting with Thorpe Bay School parents.
10.7 Appendix 7 – Summary of the meeting with Prittlewell Technology College staff.
10.8 Appendix 8 – Summary of the meeting with Prittlewell Technology College parents.
10.9 Appendix 9 – Response of Thorpe Bay School Governing Body.
10.10 Appendix 10 – Response of Prittlewell Technology College Governing Body.
10.11 Appendix 11 – Proposed admission criteria of the new school on the Prittlewell site.
10.12 Appendix 12 - Consultation with Children and Young People of Thorpe Bay School.
Secondary School Reorganisation Nov 05 Page 9 of 9 Report Final 16/11/2005 DCL015
Cabinet 22nd November 2005 Appendix 1 Secondary School Reorganisation
Recommendations of the Cabinet report of 4th October agreed at a special meeting of the Council on 6th October 2005
2. Recommendations
2.1 That a further period of public consultation be undertaken on:
a) the closure of Thorpe Bay School;
b) that there be no admissions to Thorpe Bay School in year 7, nor provision for year 10, in the academic year commencing September 2006, and closure of the school for all year groups on 31st August 2007;
c) the agreement of a protocol with all non selective secondary schools in Southend to admit all of the current year 9 pupils at Thorpe Bay School for the start of the academic year 2006-07, and all of the current year 7 & 8 pupils at Thorpe Bay School for the start of the academic year 2007-08;
d) the establishment of a partnership arrangement with another Secondary School for the academic year 2006-07 only, to ensure full curriculum provision at Thorpe Bay School for pupils currently in years 7, 8 and 10;
e) the closure of Prittlewell Techology College on 31st August 2006 and the opening of a new Fresh Start 11-18 community school on the Prittlewell site on 1st September 2006;
f) the development of a new school on the Prittlewell site which would have a dual specialism and a sixth form, in order to provide new and more varied opportunities for young people in Southend;
g) the admission number of the new school on the Prittlewell site being 280 per year (10 forms of entry) from September 2006 falling to 224 per year (8 forms of entry) from September 2010;
h) the catchment area of the new school on the Prittlewell site for September 2006 being that of the existing catchment areas of Thorpe Bay School and Prittlewell Technology College, pending a revision of secondary school catchment areas for September 2007; and
i) the admission criteria for the new school on the Prittlewell site being that currently applicable at Prittlewell Technology College.
2.2 That the Council negotiates with the Governing Body of Eastwood High School to increase the intake from 168 per year to 192 per year in order to provide more places for parents in the west of the town and in particular Eastwood Zone B.
2.3 That the Council undertake a study relating to both school and community use to enable more effective use of the space on the Prittlewell site occupied by the Chase Sports Centre.
Appendix 1 Page 1 16/11/2005
2.4 That if the proposals are implemented:
a) the Thorpe Bay site be retained for educational purposes;
b) that the Council continue negotiations with the Governing Bodies of both Cecil Jones High School and Shoeburyness High School about the educational use of the Thorpe Bay site after closure of the school and that a further report be submitted to Cabinet.
2.5 That if Prittlewell Technology College closes and a new school opens then the Council would :
a) recommend to the temporary Governing Body that the establishment of the new school should involve a thorough review of the existing staffing and that every effort should be made to secure posts for existing staff so as to ensure a good education is received by all young people; b) recommend to the temporary Governing Body that there be national advertisements for the Headteacher and Deputy Headteacher posts, which is the normal procedure in a new school, and this should be considered in conjunction with the employment position of the current Headteacher and Deputy Headteachers; c) provide pay protection for 3 years from 31st August 2006 for staff remaining within the school not otherwise covered by existing protection arrangements.
2.6 That if the Thorpe Bay School closes on 31st August 2007 then the Council would:
a) ensure the school had sufficient resources to guarantee the employment of current permanent staff until 31st August 2007, despite the fall in pupil numbers; b) put in place staff incentives to encourage staff to remain at Thorpe Bay School until 31st August 2007; c) provide pay protection, if necessary, for 3 years from 31st August 2007 for staff who remain employed within Southend schools; d) develop a protocol with other Southend schools to offer preference interviews to staff.
Appendix 1 Page 2 16/11/2005 Cabinet 22nd November 2005 Appendix 2 Secondary School Reorganisation
Secondary Schools Reorganisation - Consultation List The consultation document is available on www.southend.gov.uk/secsch_reorg
All staff at Thorpe Bay and Prittlewell (107 TB & 109 PW) All teaching trade Unions – NUT, NASUWT, PAT, ATL, NAHT, SHA} All non teaching Trade Unions – Unison, GMB } Chair of Governors Thorpe Bay and Prittlewell All Governors of Thorpe Bay and Prittlewell (18 TB + 18 PW) All parents of current pupils – excluding those who leave in summer term 2005 (TB & PRITTLEWELL) All parents of prospective year 7 pupils in September 2006 All parents of year 3 - 6 in September 2005 from all feeder schools to Thorpe Bay and Prittlewell Thorpe Bay Sacred Heart Hamstel Inf and Hamstel Junior Thorpe Greenways Infant and Thorpe Greenways Junior Bournes Green Infant and Bournes Green Junior Thorpedene Infant and Thorpedene Junior
Prittlewell Earls Hall Infant and Earls Hall Junior Milton Hall St Helens Westborough St Mary’s Porters Grange Chalkwell Infant and Chalkwell Junior Prince Avenue Bournemouth Park Primary Our Lady of Lourdes
All Members of the Council (emailed) All primary, secondary and special schools – Attn Chair of Governors (except TB & P) All primary, secondary and special schools – Attn Headteacher (except TB & P) Castle Point Council Chase Sports Centre Chief Exec - Rob Tinlin Connexions - Michael Bracey / Alastair McGarry Customer Contact Centre - Andy Mardon (emailed & Grd Flr Reception copies) CYPSP (via Rob Harris, Town Clerk's office - emailed to committee & Exec committee) DfES - Eldridge Foster Diocese of Brentwood – Attn Father George Stokes Diocese of Chelmsford – Attn Canon Peter Hartley Early Years Partnership - Diana Bateman, Thamesgate House Essex County Council – Dr Carey Bennet – Service Director for Schools Head of Democratic Services, Southend Borough Council - Andy Wallace Learning and Skills Council – Attn Paul Taylor Leigh Town Council Media Department - Southend Borough Council (email) MPs – David Amess and James Duddridge NOVA Partnership * Renaissance Southend Ltd - Chairman Stuart Greengrass Safer Journeys to School, Julia Moreland, 11th floor Civic Centre SAVS - Southend Association of Voluntary Services - Maureen Frewin School Organisation Committee (via Andy Wallace) Schools Document Posting Website Secondary schools in Castle Point and Rochford
Appendix 2 Page 1 of 2 SEEVIC – Attn Geoff Arnott SOPHA - Bron Smith SOSHA - John Duprey South East Essex College – Attn Jan Hodges South Essex Chamber of Commerce - Mark Willmore, Manager Southend School Governors Association - Barry Cole Southend Police - Chief Superintendent - Jacqui Cheer Southend Primary Care Trust - Julie Garbutt Southend Tenants and Residents Federation - Simon Morton, Chairman Southend University - Linda Jones Special School Heads - Tom Wilson Thames Gateway South Essex Partnership - Mary Spence Thurrock Borough Council Youth Offending Team - Carol Compton, Baryta House Contact Centre - ground floor
* NOVA :- Prospects /Badgehurst Training/Central Academy/Crown College/Eden Training/ITEC/J&E training/Life Skills Solutions/YMCA/Thurrock & Basildon College/Vocational Training Services Badgehurst Training Ltd Eden Training ITEC
Residents Association, Westborough
Hard copies are available on request by writing to: Secondary School Reorganisation Department of Children and Learning Southend on Sea Borough Council Civic Centre Victoria Avenue Southend on Sea Borough Council Essex SS2 6ER Email: [email protected] Tel: 01702 215921 Fax: 01702 432273
Additional TB sheet sent to Pupils/Staff & Governors Additional PW sheet sent to Pupils/Staff & Governors
Appendix 2 Page 2 of 2 Cabinet 22nd November 2005 Appendix 3 Secondary School Reorganisation
Summary of the responses to the 3 specific questions on the publlic consultation Parent Q1 Phased closure Thorpe Bay Chair of Governor (other Headteacher (Primary/ Parent % of School? Total Governors Councillor Governor school) (other school) Other Special) (Secondary) Pupil Resident Staff responses Don't_Know 35 2 6 4 11 10 2 7.5% No 368 1 13 11 5 1 34 70 126 41 60 6 78.5% Yes 66 4 3 8 18 27 2 1 3 14.1% Q2 Agree with the future arrangements for Thorpe Bay pupils? Don't_Know 53 2 1 5 5 20 16 3 1 11.3% No 369 1 13 11 5 3 35 70 126 40 58 7 78.7% Yes 47 3 2 6 9 21 2 2 2 10.0% Q3 Agree Prittlewell closure and reopening? Don't_Know 68 1 1 5 7 16 26 5 7 14.5% No 241 1 4 4 2 2 24 54 79 20 45 6 51.4% Yes 160 9 8 6 3 15 29 58 20 9 3 34.1%
Type of respondent Total consultation responses logged onto database 469 Chair of Governors 1 Councillor 13 Governor 13 Governor (other school) 9 Headteacher (other school) 10 Other 46 Parent (Primary/Special) 99 Parent (Secondary) 163 Pupil 45 Resident 61 Staff 9 469
Appendix 3 Page 1 Cabinet 22nd November 2005 Appendix 4 Secondary School Reorganisation
Key Points raised in returned Consultation Forms - Question 4 , which gave the opportunity for general comments
Type of respondent P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14 P15 P16 P17 Chair of Governors 10000000100100000 Councillor 00090000000900000 Governor 00340000320400015 Governor (other school) 00010001110201011 Headteacher (other school) 34321010031010003 Other 11463100222600106 Parent (Primary/Special) 6272114141315119051216 Parent (Secondary) 281538362489311029827 Pupil 016101000110200005 Resident 61072101600910616 Staff 21112100000110100 Total 21 18 39 99 13 13 4 10 35 33 7 64 3 8 18 13 69
1. Traffic congestion in Prittlewell Chase 2. Prittlewell site too small. 3. Concerns over how transition to other schools will be managed 4. Concerns over current pupils’ disruption of education, especially those studying for/taking GCSEs. 5. Closing and re-opening a school will not solve its problems. 6. Just doing this to get Prittlewell out of special measures. 7. Prittlewell should keep its Technology status 8. Prittlewell should have a 6th form. 9. Loss of school places - New housing estates, restriction of parental choice. 10. Concerns over catchment area - too big, will disadvantage some pupils 11. Build the new school on the Thorpe Bay site. 12. Concerns about travelling, cost, during and after school hours/safety 13. Disruption to Special Needs Pupils at the schools. 14. Questioning how secondary school selection can be done at this time of uncertainty. 15. All about sale of school land 16. Council just wants government money 17. Extra pressure on already full schools
Appendix 4 Page 1 Cabinet 22nd November 2005 Secondary School Reorganisation Appendix 5
Meeting with Thorpe Bay School staff: - 20th October 2005.
Summary
Present: Paul Greenhalgh – Director of Children and Learning; Alastair Robertson – Assistant Director, Children and Learning; Joanna Ruffle – Assistant Director Personnel; Roger Young - Unison, Jean Alder – Headteacher; and Thorpe Bay School staff
Paul Greenhalgh updated the staff on the revised proposals and outlined the next steps.
A range of questions from the school staff and Roger Young were answered by Paul Greenhalgh, Alastair Robertson and Joanna Ruffle.
The key points made by staff were:-
• Disruption to the education of pupils currently at Thorpe Bay School • Lack of confidence in the proposal to disperse pupils effectively • Considerable support will be needed for vulnerable pupils if dispersal occurs. • Injustice felt regarding the withdrawal of TUPE which was offered under previous set of proposals • Failure to articulate at this time, financial incentives for staff retention • Lack of clarity regarding Year 7 admissions for September 2006. • Lack of recognition of progress made recently. • More time requested to enable the school to be removed from special measures. • What will happen if Thorpe Bay comes out of special measures? • Lack of co-operation from Eastwood High School on admission issues. • Lack of capacity in other schools to receive pupils. • Uncertainty over their future could lead to a large number of resignations before closure. • Impact of closure on parental choice. • Positive parental views expressed at open evening. • Cost associated with closing the school. • Support for staff in securing positions in Southend schools. • Staff commitment to pupils and school. • Directing schools to take pupils will create a poor climate for dispersal. • The nature of the DfES pressure to close Thorpe Bay. • The future use of the Thorpe Bay site.
Summary of Views:
• Staff felt school would be out of special measures soon, and that the Headteacher has not had long enough to achieve this.
Appendix 5 Page 1 16/11/2005 Cabinet 22nd November 2005 Secondary School Reorganisation Appendix 6
Meeting with Thorpe Bay School parents - 20th October 2005 2005
Summary
Present: Paul Greenhalgh – Director of Children and Learning; Alastair Robertson – Assistant Director Children and Learning; Margaret Doran – Assistant Director Children and Learning; Jean Alder – Headteacher; and Thorpe Bay School parents, governors, and pupils.
About 45 parents and 17 pupils attended (plus others including residents and Councillors)
Margaret Doran gave those present the background to the revised proposals and outlined the next steps.
A range of questions from those present were answered by Paul Greenhalgh and Alastair Robertson.
The key points were:
• Considerable disruption to current pupil’s education. The effect on GCSE/SATs results. • Concerns over dispersal of pupils. Which schools have agreed to take these pupils? Does it include Eastwood? • Problems associated with travelling longer distance to school. Cost, safety, time taken, increased congestion in Prittlewell Chase. • Give school more time to come out of special measures. • Headteacher and staff have done a good job improving the school over the past two years. • What will happen to the staff? How will they be encouraged to stay until closure in 2007? • Question data on falling numbers in light of future developments • What are the Council’s plans for the Thorpe Bay site? Will it be sold for housing? Taken over by Cecil Jones College. • What is the future of Cecil Jones College lower school site? • This closure will create very large non-selective schools elsewhere in the town. • What is the involvement of the DfES in this decision? • Special needs pupils are managed very well at Thorpe Bay School. • Parental choice will be further restricted.
Summary of Views:
• There was no support for the model of phased closure of Thorpe Bay School with the dispersal of pupils. • It was felt good progress was being made at the school and they are close to coming out of special measures.
The full minutes are available on the Council’s website on www.southend.gov.uk/secsch_reorg
Appendix 6 Page 1 16/11/2005 Cabinet 22nd November 2005 Secondary School Reorganisation Appendix 7
Summary of the meeting with Prittlewell Technology College staff – 10th October 2005
Present: Alastair Robertson – Assistant Director, Children and Learning; Margaret Doran – Assistant Director, Children and Learning; Bob Hellen – Secondary Schools Reorganisation Manager, Joanna Ruffle – Assistant Director Personnel; Denise Allen – Headteacher, and Prittlewell staff
Margaret Doran gave staff the background to the revised proposals and outlined the next steps. Questions were invited from the staff and were answered by Margaret Doran and Bob Hellen.
There was general approval for the proposals except for:-
• Proposed numbers for the Fresh Start school are unviable in providing quality education on this site. • Proposed catchment area is too large • Uncertainty and insecurity for staff regarding future employment at the school. • The need to make full use of all facilities, including the Chase Sport and Leisure Centre. • Clarification of the position for Prittlewell Technology College if the proposals for Thorpe Bay are rejected. • Reduced timescale to implement proposals for 1st September 2006 start. • The impact of negative press coverage on pupil and staff morale. • Lack of confidence in arrangements for the dispersal of Thorpe Bay students. • The position of Eastwood High School in accepting dispersed pupils. • Eastwood High School admission’s policy and its impact on Prittlewell Technology College intake.
Summary of Views: • Staff felt strongly about the impact of increased numbers on the quality of education and the safety of pupils • Staff reported low morale resulting from the uncertainty of their positions.
Appendix 7 Page 1 11/16/2005
Cabinet 22nd November 2005 Secondary School Reorganisation Appendix 8
Meeting with parents of Prittlewell Technology College - 17th October 2005
Summary
Present: Alastair Robertson – Assistant Director Children and Learning; Margaret Doran – Assistant Director Children and Learning; Cllr Denise Allen – Headteacher; and Prittlewell parents, governors and councillors.
Approx 75 people including some Councillors.
Margaret Doran gave those present the background to the revised proposal, and outlined the next steps.
A range of questions from those present were answered by Alastair Robertson and Margaret Doran.
The key points were:
• Considerable concern expressed over proposed number of pupils to be on roll at the Fresh Start school. • Size of site and impact of temporary accommodation. • Concern that building works will disrupt pupils’ education. • This proposal seen as a merger under a different name, as catchment areas to be merged. • School cannot manage local demand and additional pupils. • Eastwood B catchment area causing severe problems on admissions. Catchment areas must be sorted. • Concerns regarding traffic congestion in Prittlewell Chase. • Prittlewell has not had long enough to get out of special measures, give it more time. • What happens if Prittlewell comes out of special measures? • The quality and commitment of the Headteacher, Deputy Headteachers and staff are strongly recognised. Concern expressed regarding their future. • Question data regarding declining pupil numbers. • What is the composition of the temporary governing body. Will it include any current governors? • What other non-selective schools have agreed to take pupils from Thorpe Bay School? • What is the future of the Chase Sports and Leisure Centre? Can the school have greater control/influence of use?
Summary of Views:
• The proposed size of the school was considered to be too large to manage effectively and efficiently. • The uncertainty created for staff by the proposals and the need to retain good staff to ensure a successful school.
The full minutes are available on the Council’s website on www.southend.gov.uk/secsch_reorg
Appendix 8 Page 1 16/11/2005 Cabinet 22nd November 2005 Appendix 9
Secondary School Reorganisation
Formal Response of The Thorpe Bay School Governing Body
1. A New Vision For Education in Southend
1.1 This paper has been prepared on behalf of the governing Bodies of Thorpe Bay School and Prospects College in response to the current Secondary School Reorganisation consultation process being undertaken by Southend Local Authority.
1.2 In this document we set out a bold and ambitious new vision for Secondary Education in Southend. This new vision is concerned with securing better outcomes for children and young people. It does not concern itself with the proposals for school closure, staff redundancies and pupil relocations. Our vision is much bigger, it is about providing a completely new type of educational experience for young people in the town, and through the provision of a new curriculum, which better meets their individual needs. An integrated approach to working with other services and agencies and collaboration with business partners will transform the life chances of our children now and for generations who follow.
1.3 Our Vision is the creation of a Centre of Excellence for Southend which combines and blends the very best of academic and vocational learning dedicated to equipping young people with the skills and qualifications needed to work and succeed in the modern economy. The school would work in partnership with Prospects because of its expertise in managing vocational learning. In addition to curriculum support Prospects would provide the venue for 14-16 Construction and Engineering programmes. In addition, Prospects would help to facilitate a wider vocational curriculum to be delivered either at the new Trust School or through links to other work based learning providers. This would be a kind of Hub and satellite model.
1.4 This is a challenging and far sighted vision To succeed it will need all those involve to set aside institutional self interest, historic structures and established traditions and instead to focus on the real needs of the community, of young people, of parents and of employers.
1.5 There is a well established relationship between social background and educational achievement and nowhere is that more evident than in Southend. This proposal has the potential to break that negative link by providing young people, regardless of their circumstances, ability or background with the very best educational experience delivered by dedicated professionals in a modern, world class learning environment. This new, inclusive education provider will do much to level the playing field of social and economic inequality.
1.6 No school or college however can achieve this vision alone. Our approach will be to develop a partnership model, with multi agency involvement in supporting young people and families so that they can overcome the range of barriers which might prevent them from taking full advantage of the educational opportunities which will be available to them.
1.7.1 This centre of excellence will be concerned also with the provision of services to children, families and communities and will secure improved outcomes for children in relation to the Every Child Matters framework. Through joined up working we will ensure that every young person is enjoying and achieving, is safe, is healthy, achieves economic wellbeing and is an active participant in decision making about matters which affect them.
Appendix 9 Page 1 16/11/2005
2. The Proposal
2.1 The time table for the consultation does not provide sufficient time to address all the detail of the proposal but the overarching principles are as follows:
a) The current Thorpe Bay School to be closed and replaced by a new 11-19 Trust school by July 2008.
b) Establishment of a new campus with a 11-14 Lower School which would provide a differentiated, structured transition to secondary school and progression to an Upper School offering a combination of academic studies based on the core curriculum and vocational programmes covering up to 17 different learning areas, in conjunction with Prospects College.
c) The Lower School would provide a differentiated, structured transition to secondary school, as Thorpe Bay does now. The curriculum would address deficiencies in literacy and numeracy and address core learning skills such as independent learning, persistence, cooperation etc. Enterprise education would be a core subject, providing a context for the vocational pathways in the Upper School.
d) The Upper School would provide an adult learning setting, emphasising personalised learning and setting high expectations for achievement across a range of qualifications.
e) College Prospects College is already a centre of excellence (CoVE) for Engineering and the new school will seek similar status for Sports.
f) The Governing Bodies of Thorpe Bay School and Prospects College to be merged to form the new founding trust.
g) The funding for this development to be sought from the DfES under the Fresh Start scheme.
Appendix 9 Page 2 16/11/2005 Cabinet 22nd November 2005 Appendix 10
Secondary School Reorganisation
Formal Response of Prittlewell Technology College Governing Body
Southend-on-Sea Borough Council Department of Children and Learning Reorganisation of Secondary Schools
Public Consultation Response Form
If you wish to make a response, in favour of, in opposition to, or just with a comment, please complete and return this form. There is a space under each question for your comments, but please add any additional comments at the end or by separate attachment.
1. Do you agree with the phased closure of Thorpe Bay School? Don’t know
Comment:
As there is considerable impact on all the other non-selective schools in Southend in the current proposals, we feel unable to comment.
2. Do you agree with the proposed arrangements for the future education of Thorpe Bay pupils? Don’t know.
Comment:
As there is considerable impact on all the other non-selective schools in Southend in the current proposals, we feel unable to comment.
3. Do you agree with the proposal to close Prittlewell Technology College and with the revised proposals to establish a Fresh Start school on the Prittlewell site? Yes
Comment:
Although we agree in principle with the proposal to close the Prittlewell Technology College on 31st August 2006 and the opening of a new Fresh Start 11-18 community school on the Prittlewell site on 1st September 2006, having recognised the potential for the school and its pupils, this would be subject to the achievement of agreed new admission numbers for September 2006 and September 2007 as capacity is established through the site development programme.
There are additional comments we would like to make and they are presented at the end of this response document.
4. Please add below any additional comments you may have, including any alternative proposals you wish to make.
The Governors of the Prittlewell Technology College submitted a detailed alternative proposal as a result of the first consultation process during the summer. Although some ideas have been used from this response, Governors are concerned that a number of points made then have been ignored.
The Governors of The Prittlewell Technology College are of the view that this response document is inadequate in addressing all the recommendations in the current proposal.
Appendix 10 Page 1 16/11/2005 Subject to conditions explained below, the Governors of The Prittlewell Technology College are in support of:
2.1e the closure of The Prittlewell Technology College on 31st August 2006 and the opening of a new Fresh Start 11-18 community school on the Prittlewell site on 1st September 2006.
2.1f the development of a new school on the Prittlewell site which would have a dual specialism and sixth form, in order to provide new and more varied opportunities for young people in Southend.
2.1h a revision of secondary school catchment areas for September 2007.
2.1l the admission criteria for the new school on the Prittlewell site being that currently applicable at The Prittlewell Technology College.
2.3.1 the Council undertaking a study relating to both school and community use to enable more effective use of the space on the Prittlewell site occupied by the Chase Sports Centre.
2.5a the recommendation to the temporary Governing Body that the establishment of the new school should involve a thorough review of the existing staffing and that every effort should be made to secure posts for existing staff so as to ensure a good education is received by all young people.
2.5c providing pay protection for 3 years from 31st August 2006 for staff remaining within the school not otherwise covered by existing protection arrangements.
The Governors of The Prittlewell Technology College do not support:
2.1g the proposal for the admission number of the new school on the Prittlewell site being 280 (10 forms of entry) from September 2006. The current site, which would form the new school in the first instance, is already over crowded and woefully short of basic facilities, including dining space and toilets. The corridors are very narrow and limit movement. There is no clear plan from the Council on how these issues with providing adequate learning spaces will be addressed. This lack of forward strategic planning is likely to cause many problems in September 2006. The governors believe independent advice should be taken on the current capacity of the school and that required in the future, recognising the needs of a new curriculum model for the proposed duel specialist status.
The Governors of The Prittlewell Technology College are in support of the expansion of the new school and an increase in pupils but believes this should be done on a phased and planned basis. This should coincide with the development of a sixth form from September 2007 and a building programme to create more and significantly improved facilities.
2.1h the proposal for the catchment area of the new school on the Prittlewell site for September 2006 being that of the existing catchment area of Thorpe Bay School and the Prittlewell Technology College. The logistics of moving pupils across the town to attend a secondary school that is not in their local area is not acceptable to parents, nor practical in adding to the already congested traffic areas in these areas of the town.
2.5b the recommendation to the temporary Governing Body that there be national advertisements for the Headteacher and Deputy Headteacher posts. The Governors believe the Council should provide the temporary Governing Body with advice about the full range of options under the current staffing regulations.
Appendix 10 Page 2 16/11/2005 Name: The Governors of The Prittlewell Technology College
Type of respondent (please select one) Governor
Address: The Prittlewell Technology College Prittlewell Chase Westcliff on Sea SS0 0RT
School The Prittlewell Technology College
Date 5th November 2005-11-08
The form should be returned by 5 p.m. on Monday 7th November 2005 to:-
Secondary Schools Reorganisation Department of Children and Learning Southend-on-Sea Borough Council Civic Centre Victoria Avenue Southend-on-Sea Essex SS2 6ER Email: [email protected]
Appendix 10 Page 3 16/11/2005 Cabinet 22nd November 2005 Appendix 11 Secondary School Reorganisation
Proposed admission criteria of the new school on the Prittlewell site
Pupils will be admitted according to the following criteria in order of priority:
1. Pupils in Public Care 2. Pupils who have an exceptional medical reason for attending the school. 3. Pupils who live in the catchment area served by the school and who have a sibling attending the school. 4. Pupils who live in the catchment area served by the school. 5. Pupils who live outside the catchment area served by the school and who have a sibling attending the school. 6. Pupils who live outside the catchment area served by the school.
Pupils with statements of Special Educational Needs that name the school in the statement are required to be admitted and the admission authority does not have the right to refuse admission.
Parents wishing to apply for the admission of a child under the exceptional medical criteria must submit by the appropriate closing date for admission applications a letter from a health authority representative (or hospital). The information will need to specifically explain the medical reasons why the school in question is the most suitable school and the difficulties that would be caused if the child had to travel to another school.
In the case of over subscription in any one category “straight line” distance will be used to measure the distance between the pupil’s home and the nearest pupil entrance to the school. The pupils living closest will be given priority
All admission criteria for pupils applying for the start of Year 7 refer to the closing date for admission applications. For all other applications the criteria will refer to the date the application is received by the Council.
Appendix 11 Page 1 16/11/2005 Cabinet 22nd November 2005 Secondary School Reorganisation Appendix 12
Discussion with Young People of Thorpe Bay School ______Key issues raised by young people:
• The proposals are having a negative impact on the school • Why are you closing our school when it is working hard to improve? • The school has improved: attendance up; exclusions down • The school has improved year on year (several responses) • Children are now on task; improved behaviour throughout the school • We need to have good teachers all the time; give teachers time to improve the school; important not to have supply teachers • Children can see the difference over the years with year on year improvement (several responses); one said that there had been a dramatic change in the past year • Young people have faith in the school (several responses) • Some vulnerable young people feel safe and secure in the school • If we go to a new school, the people at the new school will now stereotype us • We now have better teachers and the standards are higher and better • There used to be bullying. Now it is safe. • Different young people, from different countries, come to the school and it is safe for them, they are looked after by others. We look after each other. • If the school closes, the teachers will be out of work and will have no money • When we were coming to this school we were afraid of going to a new school. If you close us we will be afraid, lose confidence and there will be a loss of motivation. With the discontinuity we will need to build trust in our teachers all over again. This is a crucial time for some, with examinations in the next year. • If we had a good inspection would you still close us down? • We will be so frustrated if we have to change schools again • Prittlewell has had two chances, why not us? • Current pupils are being disadvantaged because of the performance of past pupils over the past six years. • Stop judging us on the bad people of the past and come and see us here, now • The school has a reputation. The students will set targets for behaviour using their Code of Conduct (Kind, Courteous, Smart and Successful) and will set targets for communicating all the good things the school does to challenge the reputation of the school in Southend. • School has changed its logo, all children wear the uniform, the new year 7 block. • Can people please tour our school and see all the improvements, before making decisions • Is the Government just thinking that closing this school is about making money? Money for land and buildings? What about our education? • We have raised a petition with over 1000 signatures on Saturday • The speculation is harming us.
Appendix 12 Page 1 16/11/2005