15 TH DECEMBER 2008
CABINET
BUILDING SCHOOLS FOR THE FUTURE (BSF) – KEY DECISIONS PRIOR TO SUBMISSION OF OUTLINE BUSINESS CASE
REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CHILDREN, YOUNG PEOPLE AND FAMILIES
1. PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1 This report updates Members on OBC preparation, key issues and risks and captures a range of decisions Members need to make in advance of OBC submission. Decisions are required in relation to:
1. The proposed BSF programme 2. The procurement route for the BSF programme 3. The issuing of statutory notices relating to school re-organisation in the mainstream community sector.
2. RECOMMENDATION(S)
2.1 It is recommended that Cabinet:
Outline Business Case 1. Approves the proposed BSF programme as described at Section 3 for inclusion in the draft OBC. 2. Notes progress towards determination of the ICT Managed Service and Facilities Management Strategy. 3. Approves that the BSF programme be procured via a Local Education Partnership (LEP). 4. Approves that the Academies programme be procured via the National Academies Framework. 5. Notes that the Academies programme will now be the subject of a separate OBC to be submitted by a June /July 2009 deadline. 6. Notes the key issues and risks associated with the finalisation of the OBC and the BSF programme as described at Section 3.1.5. 7. Agrees to receive a further report at its January 26th 2009 meeting to consider the final BSF OBC, and in relation to the Academies OBC in due course. 8. Delegates authority to the Chief Executive in consultation with the Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Children Young People and Families to approve the draft OBC for submission to PfS 9. Supports the ring fencing of the Council’s contribution as set out in sections 5.1 and 5.7 and for the continued investment for the implementation team until completion of phase 3 of the scheme, currently planned as 2014/15. 10. Supports the proposal to ring fence all capital receipts generated from the secondary school estate changes to support the delivery of the BSF programme.
BSF Community and RC Consultation
11. Considers the process and outcomes of the recent consultation exercises relating to the mainstream School provision summarised in Appendix Two. 12. Notes that a consultation exercise was completed on 28th November 2008 regarding the RC Diocese of Salford’s wish to formalise their proposal to close St Augustines and Our Ladys Roman Catholic schools and establish a single RC High School on the site of the former Radclyffe Lower School, Broadway, Chadderton, Oldham and agrees, due to the timescales involved, to receive and consider a supplementary report regarding this at this meeting. 13. Approves the publication of Notices for: • The linked closures of Breeze Hill and Counthill Schools to enable the establishment of an Academy sponsored by The Oldham College; • The linked closures of Kaskenmoor and South Chadderton Schools to enable the proposed establishment of an Academy sponsored by The Oasis Learning Trust • The closure of Grange School to enable the proposed establishment of an Academy sponsored by the British Edutrust Foundation; and • The expansion of The Hathershaw College of Technology and Sport by one form of entry. 14. Determines that, given the size and scale of the programme, the final decisions on the proposals at the end of the representation period should be reserved for Cabinet.
15 TH DECEMBER 2008
CABINET
BUILDING SCHOOLS FOR THE FUTURE (BSF) – KEY DECISIONS PRIOR TO SUBMISSION OF OUTLINE BUSINESS CASE
REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CHILDREN, YOUNG PEOPLE AND FAMILIES
1. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
1.1 Building Schools for the Future (BSF) is the single largest investment programme Oldham will deliver during the next ten years and is vital to the regeneration and positioning of the town within the City Region as an attractive and successful place to live, work and do business.
1.2 Cabinet signed off the BSF Strategy for Change Part 2 (SfC2) for submission to Partnerships for Schools (PfS) on 27 th October 2008.
1.3 The Council is now required to submit a draft Outline Business Case (OBC) to PfS by December 19 th 2008 and a final OBC by January 31 st 2009. The OBC will set out the full BSF programme, its cost and phasing and how the programme will be procured, delivered and governed.
1.4 This report updates Members on OBC preparation, key issues and risks and captures a range of decisions Members need to make in advance of OBC submission. Decisions are required in relation to:
1. The proposed BSF programme. 2. The procurement route for the BSF programme. 3. The issuing of statutory notices relating to school re-organisation in the mainstream community sector.
1.5 The report recommends that Chief Executive in consultation with the Leader of the Council is given delegated authority to sign off the draft OBC for submission on December 19 th 2008 and that Cabinet receives a further report on January 26 th in order to approve the final OBC.
2. OPTIONS/ALTERNATIVES
2.1 Cabinet has recognised that the BSF programme is the only vehicle available to secure significant capital investment in Oldham’s secondary schools to enable transformation on the scale needed. The development and submission of the OBC represents the next step in the Council demonstrating to PfS its readiness to procure and deliver the programme. Alternative options have been considered at both programme level and as part of the detailed work with schools.
3. PREFERRED OPTION
3.1 Outline Business Case
3.1.1 The BSF Programme This section of the report describes and recommends the proposed BSF programme and the procurement route. It also describes progress on a range of associated issues and risks and next steps for their determination.
The programme has arisen from an intensive period of dialogue with individual schools around options for delivering their individual school visions. This has involved a series of visits to individual schools, working with governors and staff. Within this process individual schools’ aspirations have been worked through, costed, and set in the context of the Boroughwide strategy.
The table below outlines the proposed, indicative BSF programme. It describes school by school the proposed interventions and outcomes and the start and end dates of the school developments. It should be recognised that the programme is subject to change between now and final OBC and beyond. Every effort will be made to bring forward the build finish dates, especially where projects are free standing and not contingent on actions on other sites.
School New FE Prog Phase Funding Design % Phasing North Chadderton School
Currently 9FE reducing to 8FE 1 Design & build 2 sites onto single site New frontage Improved circulation New sports hall and external sports Reconfiguration of old sports hall to provide enhanced curriculum areas Remodel of 6 th form areas to provide additional study and social facilities Extended dining hall New build 40% Remodel 49% Refurb 11%
Phasing Start date Nov 2010 Completion July 2012 School opening Sept 2012 Oldham RC
10 FE 1 PFI Innovative new build design Designed with community use in mind Shared open plan learning areas Open plan – reduce the circulation space on curriculum areas. Personalised learning spaces New build 100% Start date Nov 2010 Completion July 2012 School opening Sept 2012 Bluecoat School Formalise 8FE 2 Design & build New entrance and frontage Improved access for community use Significant reconfiguration , brings curriculum areas together eg technology and PE/sports to allow more effective delivery of learning New 2/3 extension to the sports hall and new 2 storey block at rear Addresses DDA issues. New build 25% Remodel 13% Minor works 62% Start date Nov 2011 Completion July 2013 School open Sept 2013.
Crompton House
Formalise 7FE 2 Design & build New build to rear of site to link curriculum spaces more effectively – allows and support faculties to be brought together Separates pupils and traffic Relocates front access to the school Rationalises sports facilities for community use New build block with central resources area New social spaces New dining facilities Better adjacency of curriculum areas New build 23% Remodel 17% Minor works 44% Untouched 16% Start date Nov 2011 Completion July 2013 School open Sept 2013. Hathershaw
Increase by 1FE from 7FE to 8FE 2 Design & build Demolish two front blocks and provide new high impact block. Improved circulation, effective curriculum usage of space. High impact new front entrance Improved access for community use Increased capacity for school places Hearing Impaired Unit to be retained. New build 45% Remodel 33% Refurb 8% Do nothing 14% Start date Nov 2011 Completion July 2013 School open Sept 2013.
Royton & Crompton
Remains at 8FE 3 Design & build New build to address room sizes and link sports provision together Addresses DDA compliance Addresses circulation and curriculum grouping issues Remove unsuitable temporary blocks Increased community use Separates pupils and traffic Removes temporary accommodation New build 29% Remodel 71% Start date Nov 2012 Completion July 200 Saddleworth
No change - FE 9 3 PFI Existing site restricted for development to meet needs of curriculum. New build to meet curriculum requirements and education vision Faculty based zones / allows for community use in design and external areas. Inclusion/ DDA issues addressed New build 100% Start Nov 2012 Complete July 2014 School open Sept 2014 Newbridge Post 16 Currently 120 reduced to 75 2 Minor works to existing post 16 provision. Minor works to existing post 16 provision. 100% minor works SEBD
Pupil nos 11-16 38 Post 16 22 3 Design & build SEBD provision under review 100% new build ASD units 3 Design & build 2no 12 place ASD facilities to be provided within the mainstream schools. Schools to be identified. 100% new build PRU Places reduced by 55 to 125 3 Refurbishment Improve curriculum delivery Assist with emotional behaviours – break out area. Remodel 22% Refurb 34% Untouched 44%
The Academies will now be the subject of a separate OBC and separate financial allocations. The submission deadline is to be determined with PfS but is likely to be June / July 2009 and Cabinet will receive reports on this in due course For completeness the indicative phasing of the Academies, programme which allows for simultaneous delivery of both arms of the programme, would be as follows:
Academy Completion Date Oasis September 2012 Oldham College September 2012 Edutrust September 2013
3.1.2 Proposed procurement route. Cabinet previously approved in principle that the preferred procurement option for BSF in Oldham would be the standard model: the Local Education Partnership (LEP). Preliminary planning for the BSF programme was conducted on that basis. When it became clear, however, that the timescales attached to a LEP could not bring forward the delivery of the three Academies that are central to the programme’s transformational impact, a thorough going optional appraisal of five distinct procurement routes was undertaken. The appraisal has engaged officers, technical and legal advisors and headteachers and options have been widely debated.
The five options were considered as follows: • Option 1 - Procurement of the whole programme via a LEP. • Option 2 - Procurement of the construction of the 3 Academies and of the main BSF school construction and refurbishment programme from a pre-tendered framework of contractors. This Framework is normally referred to as the Academies Framework. • Option 3 - Procurement of the 3 Academies from the Academies Framework and procurement of a LEP for the remainder of the programme. • Option 4 - Procurement of the programme via procurement of a LEP, novation of academy school designs to the successful bidder for deliver. • Option 5 - Commissioning through an existing strategic partnership, namely
o Joint Leadership and Leadership. o Commissioning of the construction elements of the programme from Community 1st Oldham Limited, Oldham PCT’s LIFT company. o Commissioning of some or all of the programme via the Council strategic partnering arrangement with Unity.
The detailed pro’s and con’s and issues raised by each option is attached as Appendix 1. Chief Officers Management team, Joint Leaders and Leadership (November 24 th 2008) have also considered papers on the procurement route and have all recommended Option 3, a hybrid procurement strategy with procurement of the Academies from the Academies Framework and the main BSF programme through a separately procured LEP.
The rationale for the recommended procurement route is that it: 1. gives the highest transformational impact, especially on underperforming schools 2. enables the BSF and Academies programmes to be delivered simultaneously and without delay 3. transfers a high level of risk away from the local authority 4. is likely to be attractive to both medium and larger partners in the market 5. is becoming the accepted procurement route for Wave 4 authorities and is both workable and deliverable.
It is envisaged that the LEP will be relatively ‘slim’, comprising exclusivity over the building programme relating to non-Academy BSF schools, exclusivity over future capital works on those sites during the life of the BSF programme and delivery of the ICT managed service. Discussions will continue to maximise opportunities via the LEP for joint procurement of major capital projects within the town in the medium term.
3.1.3 Progress on ICT managed service
Two key areas of work which must be completed for the Outline Business Case to be submitted, is a proposed model for an ICT managed service, and a proposal for facilities management. There is an allocation of £24.3m, (£18.1M for the BSF non Academy programme, £6.2M for Academies) for ICT investment within the BSF allocation for Oldham, but a condition of this is that Oldham should have a managed service. There are a range of concerns about how a managed service will work, how its performance will be monitored, how much it will cost, and where it leaves schools in terms of decision making, governance and control. We are currently engaged in work, with headteacher representation, to customise a managed service to meet Oldham’s requirements. A workshop on this issue is being conducted at the Secondary headteachers conference on 4th December, and a concrete Oldham proposal will be shared with schools by 16th December, with a view to agreement in early January. The outcome of this will be part of the final submission, which will be presented to Cabinet at the end of January.
3.1.4 Progress on facilities management In terms of facilities management, BSF funding comes with a requirement to show how we will protect the investment into the future. This can mean introducing a facilities management service, rather like the PFI schools have, but this is a complex option for Oldham. The minimum requirement is that we have an agreed strategy for maintenance of the investment. We are working with our technical advisors to propose a “preferred option” that meets the funders requirements, offers best value for Oldham, and is acceptable to schools and stakeholders. This proposal will be shared with schools no later than the week commencing 15 th December, with a view to reaching an agreement with governing bodies in early January. The outcome of this will be part of the final submission, which will be presented to Cabinet at the end of January.
3.1.5 Delivery and governance moving forward .
3.1.5.1 Delivery The OBC will scope the shape and skillset of the BSF team moving forward. This will in part depend upon the outcome of the Council’s restructure but it is envisaged that as a key major programme the team will relate to the Council’s emerging Major Projects Team and in so doing link the BSF programme to other major capital priority schemes being developed and procured in the town The emphasis of the team will shift towards the management of the procurement of the LEP and the Academies via the national framework and thereafter to provide the client function for the LEP and the Academy contracts. Commercial knowledge and experience of similar procurements will be key skills that will need to be embedded in the team. Responsibility for the educational components of the programme, including relationships with schools and the commissioning of school places will remain with Children’s Services in the new People, Communities and Society portfolio.
3.1.5.2 Governance At its meeting on 11 th November 2008 the BSF Programme Board agreed a paper which focussed its membership but also created a wider stakeholder group. The OBC will specify roles and responsibilities for the Programme Board but will assume that Cabinet retains ownership of milestone decisions in relation to the BSF and Academies programmes. A report will be submitted to Cabinet in January seeking confirmation of the terms of reference, roles and responsibilities and membership of the BSF Programme Board and making recommendations as to decision making within the Programme.
3.1.6 Key issues and risks associated with the OBC Several high risks have been mitigated recently with the strengthening of the Core BSF team but several risks still remain. The Core team undertook a Risk Workshop on December 1 st to update the programme’s risk register and the Programme Board undertook a similar exercise on December 9 th .
Current high scoring risks are associated with the economic downturn, the development of market interest, stakeholder engagement and management, the procurement and delivery of survey work and the integration of ICT and managed services. Further risks are identified in the Treasurer’s comments in paragraph 8.4 of this report.
3.1.7 Next steps Following submission of the draft OBC on December 19 th work will be continuous until the final OBC deadline on January 31 st . Prior to this Cabinet will consider a further report on the emerging final OBC. A Peer review will take place with PfS on February 13 th . Following the anticipated approval of the OBC, it is envisaged that the procurement process will commence when the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) notice for the BSF programme is placed in April 2009.
3.2 Statutory consultation exercises
This section of the report describes the mainstream community school consultation exercise undertaken between September and November 2008. It also explains decision making in relation to the recently completed RC consultation.
3.2.1 Mainstream community schools.
3.2.1.1 Consultation purpose/ methodology The first phase of non-statutory consultation on BSF ran from March to May 2007 and focused on the vision and outline proposals rather than the detail. A consultation booklet was sent to all parents, staff and governors and made available in community facilities. The process was the subject of extensive local publicity. Meetings were held in all secondary schools for staff, governors and parents and there were a further three public meetings. Discussions were also held with Trades Unions, Governors Forum, RC and CE Dioceses, Oldham Race Equality Partnership and the Oldham Partnership. Cabinet Report EDRS 07060018 summarises that process and outcomes and resolved that the LA move into the second phase of consultations, including the statutory consultation process for individual schools.
In May 2008 an up to date information booklet ‘A Brighter Future’ was sent to all Oldham parents, staff and governors, supported by three information sessions, for interested parties to find out more and meet prospective Academy Sponsors. These were attended by 95 people including Elected Members, Governors, Staff, Parents and Trades Union Representatives.
This latest mainstream BSF consultation exercise ran between 18 th September and 15 th November 2008. It included consultation to gain views and feedback relating to the whole of the BSF and Academies programme and the first stage of the statutory consultation to undertake: (a) The linked closures of Breeze Hill and Counthill Schools to enable the establishment of an Academy sponsored by The Oldham College; (b) The linked closures of Kaskenmoor and South Chadderton Schools to enable the proposed establishment of an Academy sponsored by The Oasis Learning Trust (c) The closure of Grange School to enable the proposed establishment of an Academy sponsored by the British Edutrust Foundation; and (d) The expansion of The Hathershaw College of Technology and Sport by one form of entry.
The Council consulted with all those it is statutorily required to consult with prior to publication of Notices. This has included children and young people, who will be closely involved in the design of future schools should the proposals proceed. A wide range of methods have been used to engage stakeholders, raise awareness of the proposals and encourage participation. Full details of the statutory consultation process and outcomes are contained in the report “BSF Statutory Consultation: Mainstream Schools” attached at Appendix 2.
3.2.1.2 Consultation outcomes/responses A total of 35,901 information packs were circulated and 18 meetings held. By the close of the consultation period a total of 246 completed feedback pro-formas had been received.
The vast majority of respondents (96%) confirmed that they understood the Council’s plans. 63% of them agreed that there is a need to transform secondary education and that support was consistent across all demographic and stakeholder groups. When asked if they considered that the range of current proposals would achieve that transformation, 49% of all respondents agreed. More detail about these responses can be found in Section 3 of Appendix 2.
Critical responses to the individual school proposals can be grouped around a number of themes:
Arguments against proposals to close schools : These are arguments in defence of the status quo, arguing against the proposal to close a local school. These have been made in relation to all the schools proposals for closure. The rationale for this position is often not clearly stated, but is often based on the view that children are happy and settled.
Arguments about local facilities : These are arguments about the community benefits which will be lost with school closures. These were raised at the consultation events at South Chadderton, Breeze Hill, and the Grange. It was not raised at the Kaskenmoor consultation. The proposals for Counthill include retaining playing field space, and there were questions about the detailed plans for the site post-closure.
Arguments supporting investment in the existing schools : Proposals to retain the existing schools ran parallel with arguments for investing in existing school buildings. This arose at all of the consultation meetings.
Arguments against the proposed sites : Sites have been the focus of significant comment. Again there were parallels with arguments against closure proposals and a desire to retain the status quo. Concerns about site size and accessibility were also prevalent.
Arguments against academies: Questioning the need for academies in Oldham has been the focus of many responses with comparisons made to BSF schemes elsewhere in the country which do not include academies. Concerns have also been raised around the perception that Academies are a ‘privatisation’ of local education, that they are not locally accountable, and that they will work to the priorities of the sponsors rather then addressing the needs of local communities.
Concerns about the size of the proposed schools: A number of comments were made about the fact that two of the proposed academies are for 1500 pupils which raised issues about student welfare, particular for vulnerable groups.
Concerns around transition: Details of transition planning were requested, and in particular where two diverse school communities were planned to come together into one Academy.
3.2.1.3 Next steps Now that the consultation period has ended, a decision must be taken whether or not to formalise the proposals in 3.2.1.1 above by publishing Notices and entering the prescribed representation period. When Notices are published, a full copy of the proposals must be made available to prescribed bodies within one week of publication, and also to anyone who requests a copy within one week of receiving the request.
There then follows a statutory representation period of 6 weeks for closure proposals and 4 weeks for expansion proposals after which the proposer, the Local Authority (LA) in this case, must pass the proposals, together with any representations received, to the Decision Maker (DM) to determine the proposals.
The DM in all these proposals is the LA in accordance with new powers conferred by the Education & Inspection Act 2006 which abolished School Organisation Committees. Where formal objections are received during the statutory representation period, the DM is Cabinet. Where no formal objections are received, the Executive Director, Children Young People and Families could exercise her delegated powers to determine the proposals in consultation with the Cabinet Member, Children Young People and Families in accordance with the Council’s Scheme of Delegation. These decisions can also be reserved for Cabinet. The LA should reach their decision within 2 months of the end of the representation period or pass the proposals onto the Schools Adjudicator for determination. Linked proposals must be determined together and decisions must be compatible.
The LA has no role in the establishment of Academies. Such decisions are taken by the Secretary of State by the signing of their Funding Agreement at the end of the feasibility stage. As a result, all final decisions made in relation to community school closure proposals at the end of the representation period will, therefore, be made conditional upon the signing of the related Academy Funding Agreement in order to protect the LA’s position.
3.2.2 RC Schools
3.2.2.1 A consultation exercise ran between November 10 th to November 28 th in relation to the proposal to close St Augustines and Our Ladys Roman Catholic schools, and to establish a new single Roman Catholic school, to be located on a neutral site on Broadway (formerly the site of Radclyffe Lower school). A detailed report on the findings of this consultation will be considered by Leadership on December 8 th 2008 and a supplementary report with recommendations arising will be issued following that for Cabinet’s consideration.
4. CONSULTATION
4.1 All aspects of the BSF programme have been the subject of extensive consultation, the key features of which are:
1. the statutory consultation described at section 3.2 of this report; 2. consultation and engagement with schools including headteachers, staff and pupils to shape the estate options within the programme and the design of individual schools; and 3. consultation with wider stakeholders eg post-16 providers, the Learning and Skills Council (LSC), Diocese and the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive.
4.2 Consultation and engagement will continue to be embedded within all stages of the BSF programme. A Communications Plan will be submitted as part of the OBC.
4.3 A priority for the next quarter will be to engage with prospective bidders and ensure maximum interest in the programme.
5. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
5.1 The financial models in the OBC are based upon an affordability envelope of:
BSF SCHEME AFFORDABILITY Summary Capital Statement £M A. CAPITAL EXPENDITURE(EXCLUDING ACADEMIES CONSTRUCTION) A1. Land acquisitions, site development costs, set up costs and demolitions 22,065 A2. Construction costs 144,479 A3 ICT costs 18,186
A4 TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS 184,730
B TOTAL CAPITAL FUNDING AVAILABLE BSF funding provided by Government B1 Build programme (PFI Credits) and capital grant 132,144 B2 ICT capital grant element 18,186 B3 Oldham Council Investment - borrowing 25,000 B4 Receipts from schools within the BSF programme 7,650 B5 Net receipts from secondary schools outside the BSF programme 1,750
B6 TOTAL FUNDING 184,730
The detailed timeline for the scheme is currently being produced and will be incorporated into the January Cabinet report,
5.2 The current projections for the programme are based upon the following assumptions that:
a) the build programme meets DCSF Building Bulletin 98 requirements; b) the Academies programme is delivered separately and expenditure is not included in the above projection. It is assumed that the Academies programme will be contained within the Government funding allocation specifically provided for the Academies ; c) the ICT capital costs are contained within the capital grant funding; and that the ongoing costs of the ICT managed service are met by a per pupil contribution from the schools ; d) the affordability envelope assumes a maximum additional contribution of £25m by the Council as a prudential borrowing to support the programme; e) the acquisition costs in relation to the Saddleworth site and the Oldham RC development are assumed to be neutral.
5.3 The Council’s Medium Term Financial Strategy 2009/10 includes a Council commitment to the BSF programme of £2.3m from 2009/10, to meet the ongoing borrowing costs associated with the programme (£1.5m) and £800k for the cost of implementation.
5.4 The Schools Forum have also made a commitment that the schools budget will earmark funding of £0.750k in 2009/10 rising to £1.9m by 2011/12 to fund the potential ongoing revenue costs for the projected costs of the PFI unitary charge for the Oldham RC and Saddleworth schools .
5.5 In summary the capital cost of the programme is £184.7m. The ongoing revenue costs being:
a) £1.5m for the borrowing costs associated with the Council’s commitment to invest £25m into the BSF programme. b) £1.9m funded from the Dedicated Schools Grant to fund the projected costs of the PFI unitary charge of the 2 new schools.
5.6 The BSF programme assumes capital receipts will be generated for some of the closing school sites. Due to current market conditions the valuations are being re-assessed to ensure that the contribution reflects sensitivities of the market. In addition recent work has indicated that there may be changes required to the current estates to meet the needs of the emerging sports and leisure strategy. An updated position will be provided in the January Cabinet report. OBC requirements are for capital receipts to be valued at current market prices. It should be recognised that the markets are likely to have recovered at the points are available for sale which would support the overall affordability of the BSF programme.
5.7 The Medium Term Financial Strategy assumes £800k will be provided as growth for the implementation of the BSF programme as follows.
BSF Implementation costs 2008 - 2015 Projected costs for the BSF team and advisors 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2012 onwards Funded by : PfS set up grant 100 CYPF Directorate base budget 678 653 653 653 LA Devolved Formula Capital Grant 300 CYPF Earmarked reserves 1,341 Growth proposed Council Tax proposed in MTFS 800 800 800 Growth proposed from DSG (Interim basis until PFI schemes come on board in 2012) 750 750 * see note below Potential part year transfer of resources to the LEP – Assuming Oct 2010 delivery -250 Full year impact of transfer to the LEP -500 Total projected funding 2,419 2,203 1,953 953
Team costs and adviser fees 1,855 2,203 1,953 953 Survey costs 564 Total cost 2,419 2,203 1,953 953 * The schools PFI scheme is due to come on stream in 2012 the funding will therefore be required to meet the unitary charge.
The current revenue projections assume that there will be a transfer of resources equating to £500k for the services which the LEP will perform on behalf of the Council. Current budget indication will provide £953k for the client role to ensure sufficient resources to support two procurement routes including the three construction phases up to 2014. (TJB)
6. CORPORATE HUMAN RESOURCES COMMENTS
6.1 The impact on Authority staff will be evaluated. The detailed proposals will lead to the transfer of staff under the TUPE regulations that will require full consultation with staff and trade unions. (GW)
7. LEGAL SERVICES’ COMMENTS
7.1 Submission of the Outline Business Case is the second formal stage of participation in the BSF Programme, following approval of the Strategy for Change 2. Any significant changes from SFC2 must be noted in the Outline Business Case and the approval of Partnerships for Schools sought. As detailed in the report, some changes to the programme from SFC2 (in particular in respect of the procurement of the Academies) have been proposed and officers have consulted Partnerships for Schools during the course of developing these proposals and PfS has verbally confirmed its support. Advice has been sought from the Council’s legal advisers on the options for procurement as part of the option appraisal process.
7.2 In approving submission of the Outline Business Case, the decision maker should have regard to the guidance issued by Partnerships for Schools on the development of the Outline Business Case and be satisfied that the authority has complied sufficiently. This will help to avoid delays in approval of the Council’s submission. (SL)
7.3 There are 5 statutory stages involved in respect of a statutory proposal to close or expand a Maintained Mainstream School. The 5 stages are Consultation, Publication of Proposals, Representation, Decision and then the Implementation stage.
The report indicates that the first stage of the statutory process, Consultation has taken place and therefore the next stage is Publication of Proposals. A decision is therefore needed to proceed to publication of the proposals.
A Local Authority can publish proposals to close any category of maintained school. Proposals must contain the information specified in The School Organisation (Establishment and Discontinuance of Maintained Schools) (England) Regulations 2007. Proposals should be published within a reasonable timeframe following consultation so that they are informed by up-to-date feedback, preferably within 12 months of consultation being concluded.
A statutory notice containing specified information must be published in a local newspaper, and also posted at the main entrance to the school (or all the entrances if there is more than one entrance) and at some other conspicuous place in the area served by the school (e.g. the local library, community centre or post office etc.) Proposers may circulate a notice more widely in order to ensure that all those substantially affected have the opportunity to comment.
Where proposals are interdependent they should be identified as “related” either by being published in a single notice or the link to the other proposals made clear in each notice. (SY)
8. TREASURER’S COMMENTS
8.1 The BSF programme will require regular review to ensure the financial assumptions are monitored and any risks highlighted to members during the course of the BSF programme. The BSF programme will now be integrated into the main Capital Programme with monthly capital monitoring reports provided to Members.
8.2 The resources contained in the affordability envelope are dependent on the Council’s and Schools Forum commitment to invest priority funding in 2009/10. These commitments being subject to formal agreement by the Council and the Schools Forum.
8.3 The procurement strategy has been agreed with PfS and the Authority is committed to the adoption of PfS standard documentation.
8.4 The BSF programme is a substantial capital project over a significant number of years. The timescale and extent of the programme itself creates numerous financial risks and uncertainties, some of which are outside of the control of the Council but will require managing by the Council to deliver an affordable scheme. The significant financial risks are:
a) programming and delivery of the phased scheme particularly with the separation of the Academies procurement process; b) interest rates – the prudential borrowing and the PFI schemes assume rates which at this stage are uncertain due to the timescales of when spend will be committed; c) capital receipts due to volatility of the model; and d) government funding due to the ‘fixing’ of grant at a given price base which cause affordability issues if the construction timeline slips.
8.5 The Academies programme has been excluded from the financial information contained within this report and will form part of a Cabinet report in 2009 on completion of the separate OBC process. (TJB)
9. IT IMPLICATIONS
9.1 The vision for ICT is central to the programme and will be set out in Section 3.4 of the OBC.
10. PROPERTY IMPLICATIONS
10.1 A series of land and property based transactions have been undertaken and will be reviewed as the programme develops.
10.2 The vision for the secondary school estate is central to the programme as set out in this report and in Sections 3.1 – 3.3 of the OBC.
11. ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH & SAFETY IMPLICATIONS
11.1 The vision for the secondary school estate is central to the programme as set out in 10.2.
12. COMMUNITY COHESION IMPLICATIONS (INCLUDING CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 17 OF THE ACT)
12.1 The programme will make a considerable contribution to community cohesion in the Borough. The new schools proposed are likely to be significantly more mixed than the predecessor schools, and the programme as a whole is a catalyst for building relationships and cohesion with young people, parents, schools and other stakeholders.
13. RECOMMENDATIONS
13.1 It is recommended that Cabinet:
Outline Business Case 1. Approves the proposed BSF programme as described at Section 3 for inclusion in the draft OBC. 2. Notes progress towards determination of the ICT Managed Service and Facilities Management Strategy. 3. Approves that the BSF programme be procured via a Local Education Partnership (LEP). 4. Approves that the Academies programme be procured via the National Academies Framework. 5. Notes that the Academies programme will now be the subject of a separate OBC to be submitted by a June /July 2009 deadline. 6. Notes the key issues and risks associated with the finalisation of the OBC and the BSF programme as described at Section 3.1.5. 7. Agrees to receive a further report at its January 26th 2009 meeting to consider the final BSF OBC, and in relation to the Academies OBC in due course. 8. Delegates authority to the Chief Executive in consultation with the Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Children Young People and Families to approve the draft OBC for submission to PfS 9. Approves the exemption of this report from Call In so that the draft OBC can (subject to the 13.1.8 above) be submitted by the PfS deadline of 19 th December 2008. 10. Supports the ring fencing of the Council’s contribution as set out in sections 5.1 and 5.7 and for the continued investment for the implementation team until completion of phase 3 of the scheme, currently planned as 2014/15. 11. Supports the proposal to ring fence all capital receipts generated from the secondary school estate changes to support the delivery of the BSF programme.
BSF Community and RC Consultation
12. Considers the process and outcomes of the recent consultation exercises relating to the mainstream School provision summarised in Appendix Two. 13. Notes that a consultation exercise was completed on 28th November 2008 regarding the RC Diocese of Salford’s wish to formalise their proposal to close St Augustines and Our Ladys Roman Catholic schools and establish a single RC High School on the site of the former Radclyffe Lower School, Broadway, Chadderton, Oldham and agrees, due to the timescales involved, to receive and consider a supplementary report regarding this at this meeting. 14. Approves the publication of Notices for: • The linked closures of Breeze Hill and Counthill Schools to enable the establishment of an Academy sponsored by The Oldham College; • The linked closures of Kaskenmoor and South Chadderton Schools to enable the proposed establishment of an Academy sponsored by The Oasis Learning Trust • The closure of Grange School to enable the proposed establishment of an Academy sponsored by the British Edutrust Foundation; and • The expansion of The Hathershaw College of Technology and Sport by one form of entry. 15. Determines that, given the size and scale of the programme, the final decisions on the proposals at the end of the representation period should be reserved for Cabinet.
14. FORWARD PLAN REFERENCE
14.1 Key Decision: YES ref CYPF 17-08, 18-08, 06-08, 10-08, 11-08
BACKGROUND PAPERS
The following is a list of background papers on which this Report is based in accordance with the requirements of Section 100D(1) of the Local Government Act 1972. It does not include documents which would disclose exempt or confidential information as defined by that Act.
DOCUMENT DATE FILE OR OTHER PLACE OF INSPECTION REFERENCE Readiness to Deliver October 06 www.oldham.gov.uk/bsf
Strategy for March 08 Level 10 Change Part 1
Partnerships for www.partnershipsforscho Schools Guidance ols.org.uk/library on Strategy for Change Part 2 Strategy for October .08 Level 10 Change Part 2 BSF report on the 11 June 07 EDRS 7060018 Internet initial phase of consultation Notes from BSF May 2008 BSF Consultation Level 10 information meetings May 2008 Statutory Oct-Nov 08 BSF Consultation Level 10 Consultation response forms Education and 2006 Education Inspection Level 6 Inspection Act Act 2006 2006
AUTHOR OF THE REPORT TEL NO DATE ID NUMBER Alun Francis Service Director 8720 2.12.08 Lynne Taylor BSF School 3126 24.11.08 Reorganisation Workstream Lead
Signed Dated
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Signed Dated
CABINET MEMBER
Ref: Document7
APPENDIX ONE
DETAILED PROCUREMENT OPTION DESCRIPTION AND APPRAISAL
BACKGROUND
Oldham’s BSF programme is currently moving toward the submission of its Outline Business Case (OBC), due for submission in first draft form on 19 th December 2008 and for final submission on 31 st January 2009. The programme has been planned on the assumption that the preferred option for procuring the schools would be the standard model preferred by Partnerships for Schools (PfS): the Local Education Partnership (LEP).
It has become apparent that the timescales attached to this procurement strategy do not accommodate the delivery of the three Academies that are central to the transformational capability of the Oldham proposals.
It is imperative that the authority moves quickly to a decision about its preferred procurement strategy. The delivery of the OBC depends on resolving this matter, as the choice of procurement route determines the shape and content of the submission.
As a result, officers have been tasked to consider and make recommendations on an alternative procurement strategy that the authority could submit for approval to PfS.
In undertaking this task, they have consulted widely, taken technical advice (from BSF technical advisors, financial and legal), engaged head teachers in the process, and reviewed the whole programme impact of each option. A procurement workshop engaging a full range of stakeholders was held on 13 November 2008, to review each option in order to help shape the recommendation in this paper.
This appendix sets out detailed issues around the feasibility of the different procurement options considered.
PROCUREMENT STRATEGY OPTIONS
Officers have been asked to investigate the feasibility of the following 5 options:
• Option 1 - Procurement of the whole programme via a Local Education Partnership (LEP). • Option 2 - Procurement of the construction of the 3 Academies and of the main BSF school construction and refurbishment programme from a pre-tenderered framework of contractors. This Framework is normally referred to as the Academies Framework. • Option 3 - Procurement of the 3 Academies from the Academies Framework and Procurement of a LEP for the remainder of the programme. • Option 4 - Procurement of the programme via procurement of a LEP, novation of academy school designs to the successful bidder for deliver. • Option 5 - Commissioning through an existing strategic partnership, namely :- o Commissioning of the construction elements of the programme from Community 1st Oldham Limited, Oldham PCT’s LIFT company. o Commissioning of some or all of the programme from the authority’s Unity Partnerships
FEASIBILITY OF THE OPTIONS
Option 1: Procurement of a Local Education Partnership
This strategy is the default procurement model for the BSF programme and the one already agreed in principle by Oldham’s Cabinet and confirmed as the preferred route within the Strategy for Change Part 2 (SfC2).
The strategy involves the procurement of a private sector partner who will form a company with the Council and an arm of PfS to deliver the whole BSF programme. The Council enters into a strategic partnering agreement with the company to deliver the programme over 10 years with provision for extension.
The procurement is carried out on the basis of two sample schemes from the whole BSF programme, which are selected to test bidders competence to deliver the programme.
Recommendation: Not recommended.
Summary of reasons:
Under this option, the Academies cannot be delivered in the timescale agreed with them by central government. Loss of the Academies from the overall programme would undermine the deliverability of the strategy to transform the education service in Oldham. If the Council is unable to guarantee delivery of its strategy in its OBC, it will lose wave 4 status within the BSF programme. This will delay the delivery of the transformation vision until 2015 at the earliest as the authority would be required to re-submit its proposals as part of a Wave 8 BSF.
Re-submission into a later wave would also mean the loss of the preferential funding received in respect of the Academies, amounting to £15.9 million.
Detailed reasons:
The proposed programme for the procurement of the LEP indicates that the first two Academies would not open until September 2013 and the third in early 2014. The Sponsors of these schools have stated that if the new facilities are not completed by September 2012 they will withdraw their sponsorship for these Academies. This eventuality would result in Oldham’s BSF programme not meeting its choice, access and diversity objectives and as a consequence not achieving the transformational outcomes that the Authority has committed to in its SfC2. If this is the case, it is likely that DCSF would not approve the Authority’s OBC by March 31 st 2009 and require Oldham’s BSF programme to be moved to a later wave. The funding programme for Wave 4 ceases on 31 st March 2009, therefore a final OBC must be submitted by January 31 st 2009 with a preview copy available for comment by 19th December 2008 at the latest. PfS has indicated that any postponement to the delivery of Oldham’s BSF programme would result in a recalculation of the Grant Funding Allocation Model (FAM), which would result in a significant reduction in the capital allowance currently agreed – principally as a result of the withdrawal of 90% new build funding for the Academies and reversion to the standard position of 50%.
Option 2: Procurement through the Partnerships for Schools “Academies Framework”
PfS has established a National Framework to deliver Academy building projects in areas that have not yet been prioritised for inclusion in the BSF programme, or where the BSF LEP will not be established in time to meet the Academy delivery targets. Councils are able to procure single schools from the design and build contractors on the framework in a straightforward manner based on standard documents and still achieve similar value for money as BSF LEPs.
The National Framework has six Panel Members, each with a presence or local supply chains in the following regions: (a) London North (North East, North West, Yorkshire and the Humber); (b) Midlands (West Midlands, East Midlands and East of England); (c) South West; (d) South East and London. The Panel have entered a Framework Agreement with PfS. The agreement will ensure that they adhere to PfS’s benchmarking system, and will also be monitored by a regime of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). The process and responsibilities for delivering through the National Framework are as follows: EoI FA Academy approved Signed Open
Broker EoI Feasibility Implementation Open (in existing buildings) 4mo 3mo 9mo 15mo 3yrs max
Stakeholder00 00 •Accommodation Brief Development consultation / • Ethos Agreement Transfer • Design Brief Design Group of Assets
OBC FBC approved approved
OBC Procurement +FBC Construct FRAMEWORK 4mo 12mo 18-24 mo
Model Timeline for Delivery of an Academy using National Framework
Recommendation: Not recommended.
Summary of reasons:
If this strategy is recommended it is unlikely that it will be approved by the Treasury, whose guidance on school building indicates a strong preference for funding and delivery via the Private Finance Initiative, where the new build element is more than 75% of the building.
This strategy involves the assumption of much greater risk by the authority, since there is minimal risk transfer to the private sector and a significantly greater requirement for capacity within the Council to procure and manage the programme which would receive a large team of staff with specialist skills.
Detailed Reasons:
The National Academies Framework is available to some authorities as a means of delivering their BSF programmes, through Design and Build contracts with separate procurements for ICT and FM services.
Like the LEP model this approach for Academies is well understood by contractors and the highly standardised documentation and benchmark rates results in projects that, to date, are being delivered on time and on budget. However, the route is less well used for the procurement of mainstream BSF schools and for programmes of the scale of Oldham’s.
The current Framework is soon to expire and is nearly at its funding threshold, and PfS have indicated that it could not accept a project of the size of Oldham since this would exceed the capacity (in terms of the value of works procured) of the Framework. It is possible that the programme could be delivered in part using the current Academies Framework (the Academies) and in part using the re-procured Academies Framework, which is anticipated to be procured by December 2010. In theory this would have a minimal impact on the overall timescale, the procurement of the new Academies Framework is however outside the control of the Council and is likely to cause a level of delay.
Procurement from the Academies Framework offers certainty of process in that the authority would be required to adopt a standard process and documentation which have been tested by panel members (contractors) and PfS. However, because the contractors on the Academies Framework have been procured subject to these standard processes, there is very limited opportunity to amend contractual documentation to meet the authority’s requirements, for example to include local labour clauses and to meet other social objectives. The Framework ensures certainty as to the build rate but due to the small number of contractors (6) on the framework can lead to minimal competition potentially leading to reduced value for money.
Procurement via the Academies Framework would be of design and build contracts. PFI credits are not available to fund Academies Framework contracts and the result would be minimal contractual risk transfer from the Council, compared with delivery via the LEP model and using PFI contracts. The exclusion of PFI from the programme would reduce the schools budget contribution into the BSF programme by £1.9m per annum (£47.5M over 25 years). This being the projected affordability gap in relation to the difference between current school delegated budgets and the required level of contribution to the unitary charge to meet annual costs such as cleaning, caretaking, security and maintenance. There would be additional risks to the authority owing to the necessity to manage procurement and contract management of the whole process and to integration of the IT service contract (which cannot be procured via the Academies Framework) with the building contracts. Very little risk is transferred away from the LA via this model.
There is no capacity currently identified in the Council to undertake procurement and contract management on this scale (and it does not form part of the authority’s contract with Unity) and unless this could be immediately identified it presents a serious practical disadvantage to this strategy. Although not able to quantify due to the lack of benchmark data it is likely to require significant in-house investment into the internal team to have the required specialist knowledge to manage and integrate the works across the whole programme. The current financial models assume that this set up cost would be at least £3.2m if undertaken via a LEP with an annual cost of £500k for contract management roles. The set up costs are likely to be higher in the authority due to this being a separate “client” function requiring expertise not currently available internally.
The Council has been advised by its technical advisers that proposed delivery of new non- Academy schools via the Academies Framework is likely to fail the Treasury’s Value for Money analysis. BSF Treasury funding rules require that where new building undertaken is greater than 75% of the building being constructed or is new build then the funding will be provided by way of PFI credits rather than capital grants.
Option 3: “Hybrid” LEP / Academy Framework Model
This option is a “hybrid” strategy comprising procurement of the academies from the Academies Framework and the main BSF programme through a separately procured LEP. (The process for each of these is described above and is not repeated here).
Recommendation: recommended
Summary of reasons:
This option is the only realistic, workable option for the authority which will permit it to remain in Wave 4. The option is recommended for the following reasons: 6. It gives the highest transformational impact, especially on underperforming schools 7. It enables the BSF and Academies programmes to be delivered simultaneously and without delay as part of Wave 4 8. It transfers a high level of risk away from the LA 9. It is the most attractive option for PfS and the market 10. It is becoming the accepted procurement route for Wave 4 authorities
Additional recommendations
If this option is adopted it is recommended that two further proposals are submitted to PfS, seeking permission to:
1. Submit separate outline business cases (OBC) for and the main BSF programme and the Academies programme to the current end of January 2009 headline for the main BSF programme OBC and to a June / July 2009 headline for the Academies OBC. This will enable both the authority and the Academy sponsors to comply with reasonable timescales for preparation of the OBCs. 2. Submit using the Wave 4 procurement guidance and proceed onto Wave 5 documentation after OBC’s submitted and whilst it is being approved. This is necessary as the authority is not in a position to meet Wave 5 requirements in time to OBC submission but will want to use Wave 5 documentation when action procurement stage is reached.
Detailed reasons
Under this strategy the Academies would be delivered separately from the main BSF programme. Delivery of the Academies separately via the Academies Framework would be a much faster process which would meet the Academies timetable. This strategy should show “early results” and the highest level of transformation in relation to both the Academies and the main BSF programme which will demonstrate the authority’s ability to achieve transformational change.
The hybrid strategy has recently been adopted by other Wave 4 authorities including Rochdale and Bolton/Blackburn with Darwen. The authority’s external advisers advise that it is emerging as the route for Wave 4 procurements.
Both the Academies Framework and the LEP provide certainty of process. The programme would adopt the standard processes and documentation which have been tried and tested by the other BSF LEP models within the market. The authority would however retain flexibility in being able to bring projects to market when they are ready.
This "standard" procurement option would inevitably result in less scrutiny and debate with and involving PfS, which would have a positive impact on timescales and the profile of the programme.
Bidders (and more importantly their funders) would view such an approach more favourably as the removal of any uncertainty or "non-market" issues would help them to mitigate the costs of bidding. The mixed approach is likely to be attractive to both middle and large sized construction companies £170m remains within the LEP which is an attractive proposition to the market, particularly in the current economic climate.
If this strategy is adopted there will be a need to consider the need for additional capacity within the authority to manage two procurement processes. The impact and cost should not however be as great as for Option 2.
Also in contrast with the Option 2 proposal the hybrid strategy shares risk across a range of providers.
There are no material legal or procurement issues with this strategy. Option 4: Procurement of LEP with novation of designs for the academies to the successful bidder for delivery
Under this strategy the BSF programme is delivered via procurement of a LEP. To enable the authority to meet the Academies building timescale, it would be proposed to prepare designs and specifications in parallel with the procurement of the LEP and “novate” the contracts under which these designs are produced from the authority to the LEP.
Recommendation: Not recommended.
Summary of reasons :
This option has been trialled by one authority and it is understood that the programme has suffered delays and cost-overruns. It is an otherwise untested strategy for delivery of a large scale transforming schools programme which is anticipated to be highly unattractive to the market.
Detailed reasons Delivery of Academies through a novated design to a contractor at RIBA stage E was the original procurement route of the first wave of Academies and, like the Hybrid procurement approach, could deliver the Academies within the timescales expected.
This strategy would ensure that all work is delivered through the LEP, unlike the Hybrid and Academies Framework strategies. However, developing designs to this level of detail would incur significant up-front cost to the Authority that would otherwise be incurred by a design and build contractor or LEP and passed to the Authority through the construction pricing. Furthermore, design risk transfer would not occur until much later on in the programme, when it is possible that the LEP may not share the views of the design team about affordability and seek to significantly modify the designs. Indeed, it is this last point that resulted in all of the early Academies going considerably over budget and being delayed, which resulted in PfS establishing the Academies Framework.
Therefore, it is highly unlikely that PfS would sanction this approach and PfS have indicated verbally that they would have serious concerns if it was submitted as an alternative strategy.
Option 5: Commissioning of the BSF Programme from an existing strategic partner.
Oldham PCT on behalf of a range of organisations including Oldham Council have procured a partner (Equity Solutions and Partners Limited) to deliver health and social care construction related projects under the LIFT Programme.
It has been proposed that Community First Oldham Limited (CFO) could be commissioned to deliver the BSF programme on behalf of Oldham Council. The company has been commissioned on recently to deliver mixed leisure and health centre developments by the authority and is involved in other similar projects.
Oldham Council has procured a strategic partner, Unity, to deliver a range of services under a long-term strategic service delivery partnership contract with a special purpose vehicle in which the authority and Mouchel hold shares.
It has been proposed that Unity could be commissioned to deliver all or part of the BSF programme, without the need for further procurement. Alternatively, that Unity could bid in an open procurement process to provide all or part of the programme, for example to become the LEP.
Recommendation: Not recommended.
Summary of reasons:
While a consideration of these possible strategies may have been feasible at an early stage in the preparation of BSF proposals, there is simply not the time to resolve the complex procurement and contractual issues which these options variously present and still meet the requirement of PfS for delivery of the OBC. The authority would fall out of Wave 4 if this option were pursued at this stage.
The risk of challenge under procurement law to commissioning without competition of either of these partners to delivery BSF work (in the case of Unity any work which is not existing “core business”) is significant and could potentially derail the whole programme.
Detailed reasons:
Community First Oldham
Detailed explanation has been requested as to why procurement of BSF through CFO is not recommended. The Council’s legal advisers have advised that the scope of the OJEU notice through which CFO have been procured is not wide enough to enable the BSF programme to be delivered through CFO without a fresh procurement by Oldham Council. The authority’s legal advisers, Addleshaws, have advised that the risk of challenge of the use of the Option could derail the BSF Project from the outset. A detailed explanation of this advice which is being provided in its entirety to the Chief Executive, follows.
The scope of the OJEU An extract from the OJEU , which established CFO is set out below (emphasis added)
"The contracting authorities are seeking a private sector partner or partners to participate and invest in a new Public Private Partnership vehicle which will provide (or arrange for the provision of) Partnership Services (including property management, procurement consultancy, architectural, engineering, construction, technical and building services). The PPP vehicle will also provide/manage the provision by its supply chain of a mixture of new build and refurbished serviced community-based health and social care facilities under lease arrangements. These may include intermediate care facilities, health centres, resource centres, walk-in centres, drop-in centres, outpatient and diagnostic facilities, GP and dentists' accommodation, pharmacies and facilities for professions allied to medicine. The PPP vehicle will provide the facilities to tenants on leases of serviced accommodation which meets defined standards throughout the lease term . The PPP vehicle may also provide facilities management services (such as building maintenance, repair services, and grounds maintenance services) to other buildings within the contracting authorities' estate. Applicants will be asked to take account of relevant recommendations in the "Oldham Independent Review" in formulating their proposals including the need to address Guidance on Community Cohesion. [http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/new_indexs/index_community_cohesion.htm] Applicants should consult the Memorandum of Information accompanying the pre- qualification questionnaire for further information on the schemes, proposed structure and contract periods The contracting authorities are seeking a private sector partner or partners to participate and invest in a new Public Private Partnership vehicle which will provide (or arrange for the provision of) Partnership Services (including property management, procurement consultancy, architectural, engineering, construction, technical and building services). " The PPP vehicle will also provide/manage the provision by its supply chain of a mixture of new build and refurbished serviced community-based health and social care facilities under lease arrangements . These may include intermediate care facilities, health centres, resource centres, walk-in centres, drop-in centres, outpatient and diagnostic facilities, GP and dentists' accommodation, pharmacies and facilities for professions allied to medicine. The PPP vehicle will provide the facilities to tenants on leases of serviced accommodation which meets defined standards throughout the lease term. The PPP vehicle may also provide facilities management services (such as building maintenance, repair services, and grounds maintenance services) to other buildings within the contracting authorities' estate. Applicants will be asked to take account of relevant recommendations in the "Oldham Independent Review" in formulating their proposals including the need to address Guidance on Community Cohesion. [http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/new_indexs/index_community_cohesion.htm] Applicants should consult the Memorandum of Information accompanying the pre- qualification questionnaire for further information on the schemes, proposed structure and contract periods
The authority’s legal advisers advise that on their interpretation of the OJEU they do not believe that the proposed scope of the BSF Project falls within the scope of the original OJEU Notice. In particular, the total estimated capital value of the CFO procurement was outlined as £35 million. The scope of the BSF programme (notwithstanding the difference in sector – i.e. healthcare versus secondary schools estate provision) is clearly significantly in excess of such an estimate. Accordingly, if the CFO strategy was pursued, the authority’s adviser’s consider that the risk of challenge to the procurement of the BSF programme could be significant.
The authority’s legal advisers are not aware of any BSF schemes which have been procured via existing LIFT arrangements. The authority has been advised that for the reasons outlined above it is highly unlikely that PfS would approve funding of a BSF programme which presented such high risks.
Unity Partnership
It has been proposed that all or part of the BSF Programme could be commissioned from the Council’s strategic partner Unity; or alternatively, the possibility of Unity bidding to participate in various aspects of the Programme.
The Unity Partnership was not procured to deliver BSF. There is no mention of BSF in the OJEU notice seeking a partner and the potential for the authority to commission Unity to deliver the BSF programme therefore depends on the programme being able to be brought within the scope of the existing contract.
While certain aspects of the programme may be argued to fall within the core, extension and remainder business of Unity (which the partnership has an exclusive right to deliver to the Council subject to the contract or to production of an acceptable business case) it is likely to be difficult to argue that the wider requirements under BSF were covered by the scope of the OJEU and procurement. This means that using Unity as the lead delivery entity in relation to BSF could be non compliant with procurement requirements and, as a result, be subject to challenge under procurement law.
The services required under BSF will be more extensive than those covered by the Unity SPA – for example, BSF will involve the integrated procurement and provisions of the PFI and/or design and build contracts to carry out the new build or refurbishment works together with the associated private finance in relation to new build/PFI and integrated ICT managed service provision.
It may be possible to commission Unity for aspects of BSF under the existing strategic partnering agreement, but detailed work has not been undertaken by the authority or by Unity to assess the feasibility of this or to develop the business cases that would be required. Since there is no direct fit between the BSF programme and the services identified as core, extension and remainder under the Unity strategic partnering agreement extensive detailed work would be required to reach assurance on the feasibility of such proposals under procurement law, the law relating to state aid and in terms of the business case. There is insufficient time remaining before the authority is required to submit its Outline Business Case to undertake this work to a level sufficient to give certainty to PfS. Pursuit of this strategy is likely to jeopardise delivery of a robust OBC and result in loss of the authority’s position in Wave 4.
Opting not to commission Unity under the strategic partnership agreement would not prevent Unity for example bidding in to become the private sector LEP partner or to provide the ICT managed service and participate in open competition, on an individual or consortium basis.
Note on participation of Unity in the BSF process:
It is possible that Unity or its private sector partners Mouchel could decide to bid in open competition to become the private sector LEP partner, or to deliver other aspects of the BSF programme, such as delivery of the IT managed service.
Unity has been requested by the authority’s deputy monitoring officer to make its intentions in this regard clear. To date it has declined to do so.
The authority’s monitoring officer and its external legal advisers have advised that the sharing of information, invitation to meetings and other involvement of Unity in the BSF process should be treated with extreme caution, since such involvement presents a serious risk of giving a potential bidder access to information about the process, including confidential commercial information, which is not available to other potential bidders. This could result in a challenge to the authority under procurement law that it has given a party an unfair advantage. Such a challenge could seriously delay delivery of the programme while the legal issues were resolved and could result in the Council becoming liable for damages/costs which at this point are unquantifiable.
Options Criteria Recommendation Impact on Implications for Financial Legal Programme Risk Acceptability Implications Learning Commerci programme timing OBC implications implications impact transfer to for ICT from al from LA stakeholders Service elsewhere attractiven ess Full LEP Academies OBC not £15.9m lost in Neutral – Delays will High Academy Provided Approximatel High due Not recommended as programme slips deliverable. Academies’ PfS’ reduce impact sponsors will through y four in to variety the transformation of from 2012 (18mths Lose preferential preferential preferred of programme walk away. LEP on a operation in of learning/schools is to 1 yr) funding for funding strategy as a whole – single basis the UK – programm delayed to 2015 and Academies. associated with transformation Default have e £15.9m of BSF programme Wave 4 status Wave 4 status. al impact model for experienced Academies’ would not be also lost, delayed until PfS. delays in set preferential funding deliverable programme 2015-2019 with up lost delayed to Wave LA contribution = surplus Cabinet 8 £25m at a cost of places/standar approval in £37.5m. ds/ school principle budget issues School budget untackled. contribution = £47.5m towards Lose ability to PFI schools. have Academies as Cost of LEP set- 11-16 – would up= £3.2m, default to 11- £0.5m/year to run 19. LEP/managed contracts (depending on what is transferred) Academies Three Academies by OBC for BSF Certainty over Rigid Certainty of Very low Treasury Need to Not done Could be Not recommended as Framework 2012. programme – rates but contracts, delivery – all D level of rules biased have a elsewhere in low due to likely to fall foul of Rest of programme – March 2009 overruns and risk limited & B risk towards PFI separate the UK on rigidity of Treasury rules, minimal /unknown Academies. profile may opportunity to transfer Acceptable to contract for Oldham’s framewor untried, high risk and delay due to funds OBC would slip increase costs to amend, 2 less PFI from LA PfS if the BSF scale (lends k, i.e. only resource intensive for on existing to June/July LA. Fewer cannot schools – big risk Academies Framework. itself to six LA Framework running 2009 economies of include social maintained as to LA on and BSF in Integration smaller potential out and setting up a scale via use of clauses eg new for 25 programm two bundles issues over projects - suppliers new Framework different local labour years. e and across two both <£100m) Two suppliers. delivery Frameworks. contracts. bundles Acceptable to unattractiv Retains £15.9m Academy e to Academies’ sponsors. bidders preferential Opposition to funding. Academies is likely to LA contribution = mount. £25m at a cost of £37.5m.
No schools budget contribution.
Costs to LA to develop capacity and deliver very high, large team required with specialist skills (no benchmark available)
Hybrid – LEP/ Whole programme - OBC for BSF Minimises Neutral. Five new High level Maximises Ability to Favoured High. Recommended as Academies Academies and BSF programme – financial risk – Need to schools and of risk Academy deliver joint procurement Combinati has highest Framework underway by 2012. March 2009 retains £15.9m determine one transfer. engagement/ ICT given route for on of D&B transformational Academies OBC Academies’ whether the refurbished Spreads preferred timings of Wave 4 – and PFI impact, lowest risk, would slip to preferential Academy school risk model for BSF and has been attractive most attractive to PfS June/July 2009 funding. Framework delivered by across sponsors. Academies used by Appeals and market and is allows for 2012 via dual two Rochdale, to becoming accepted LA contribution = batch option procurement partners. Acceptable to Bolton/Black medium procurement route £25m at a cost of (as opposed arms – highest PfS burn and large under Wave 4. £37.5m. to bundle) transformation players School budget al impact, (c.£170m contribution = especially on LEP), £47.5m towards under- particularl PFI schools. achieving y in schools. current LEP set up costs Model has market of circa high level of Ability to £1m.Costs to LA flexibility – benchmar in relation to bring projects k integration and to the market project when they are management high ready to keep but not as high as transformation all Framework going. option. LEP with Unknown – OBC by March No price certainty Increased Potential loss Low and Academy Mis-match Delays and Low Not recommended as novated uncertainty of 2009 would for programme as legal of programme late sponsors and between cost overruns not supported by key Academies programme timing. require LA to a whole. Potential complexity – with low impact PfS programme in LA using stakeholders and any Potential delay to underwrite high level of risk move from unsupportive and ICT model, e.g. time gained on early whole programme Academies, pricing. standardised Luton design may be lost otherwise OBC documents on complexity of legal delayed and £15.9m lost in Increased matters and due Wave 4 status Academies’ cost and diligence required by removed preferential delays LEP. funding. attached as due diligence Significant upfront would be costs for LA. required
Existing Potential serious OBC delayed £15.9m lost in Potential Potential delay Unknown Unlikely to be Separate Investigated Not Not recommended as Strategic delay if legal and Wave 4 preferential legal or loss of acceptable to procuremen but not applicable it is too late to be Partnership challenge status lost Academies’ challenge as programme PfS. PfS t required pursued by as able to give the PfS a)Community1 funding. scope of the unlikely to several other exclusivel the required level of st Oldham Different model – OJEU did not agree LA (also y LiFTCo certainty in the OBC, i.e. leaseback at cover non- OBC/release looked at at the risk of legal PFI rates, but no health estate resources National challenge is too high offset from PFI provision and without level) and delays would be credits so more not wide higher level considerable. costly. enough to of certainty Overall – procure BSF. which would implications are take many untested and months to unknown. negotiate.
Existing Potential serious OBC delayed £15.9m lost in Potential Capacity Low Active and Not on n/a Strategic delay if legal and Wave 4 Academies’ legal doubts vehement BECTA Partnership challenge status lost preferential challenge. opposition framework. b)Unity (ICT funding. from Would need only) Schools. to vary current specificatio n and payment mechanism Existing Unity was not procured to deliver LEP services Negotiatio Strategic Current ownership structure of the Unity Partnership does not lend itself to the LEP model – Council would need to reduce stake to 10% (currently 33%) ns Partnership Potential legal challenge from other bidders undertake c)Unity (LEP) Could bid to become LEP as part of a consortium n but protracted and unsucces sful - Salford, Durham Existing Outside of OJEU therefore same issues around legal challenge. OJEU set up to exclude secondary schools, in anticipation of separate BSF procurement. Strategic May also be scale and capacity constraints Partnership Does not appear to be any risk of challenge from Unity d)Unity (Framework) APPENDIX TWO
Transforming Secondary Education
Statutory Consultation Report
December 2008
Version 1 – August 06 31
Contents
1. Introduction 3 1.1. Mainstream school statutory consultation 1.2. Building Schools for the Future 1.3. Oldham’s BSF vision 1.4. Previous consultations and information sharing 2. Consultation methodology 6 2.1. Consultation strategy 2.2. Stakeholder engagement 2.3. Information pack 2.4. Questionnaire 2.5. Distribution and response profile 3. Key findings – general summary 10 3.1. Do you understand Oldham Council’s plans? 3.2. Do you agree that there is a need to transform secondary education? 3.3. Do you agree that these proposals will transform education? 3.4. Qualitative feedback 4. Key findings – school by school 17 4.1. Grange School 4.2. Kaskenmoor School 4.3. South Chadderton School 4.4. Breeze Hill School 4.5. Counthill School 4.6. The Hathershaw College of Sports & Technology 5. Response to key concerns 21 5.1. Category A issues 5.2. Category B issues 6. Conclusion 25
Appendix Appendix A Consultation events questions 26 Appendix B Summary of comments 31
Version 1 – August 06 32 1. Introduction
1.1. Mainstream school statutory consultation This report sets out the results of Oldham Council’s statutory consultation on Oldham’s mainstream secondary education as part of the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme.
The statutory consultation ran from 18 September to 15 November 2008 and relates to the proposed community school closures and expansion by one form of entry or more. The table below summarises the proposals.
Table 1 – statutory consultation proposals Schools Proposal Proposed site Sponsor Grange The school would close and be The site of the present The Edutrust replaced by an Academy on the existing Our Lady’s RC School, Academy Charity site from 2010, and subsequently move Broadway, Royton. Trust to a new building on a new site. Kaskenmoor Two schools would close and be The former Brook Mill, Oasis Community South replaced by an Academy on the existing Hollinwood. Learning Chadderton sites from 2010, and subsequently move to a new building on a new site. Breeze Hill Two schools would close and be The former Orb Mill, The Oldham Counthill replaced by an Academy on the existing Waterhead. College sites from 2010, and subsequently move to a new building on a new site. The Extensive refurbishment and ICT Current location N/a Hathershaw investment including expansion by one College of form of entry. Sport & Technology
1.2. Building Schools for the Future Oldham has secured £230 million under the Government’s BSF programme. This represents the biggest single investment ever made in education in the town. The BSF programme is vital to Oldham as it aims to make substantial progress towards tackling educational under-achievement and surplus places, contributing to better community cohesion. Progress in these areas is crucial to Oldham’s future prospects and prosperity.
1.3. Oldham’s BSF vision Oldham’s vision is for excellent schools and high standards for all pupils. School improvement and community cohesion are central to the BSF programme and the transformation it will bring. BSF is an opportunity to transform secondary education across Oldham with every secondary school
Version 1 – August 06 33 rebuilt, replaced or substantially refurbished, and all receiving significant investment in new information technology.
The programme will also work alongside the Council’s major plans for the regeneration of Oldham. There is a commitment for BSF to deliver regeneration and recognise the critical link between education and participation in Greater Manchester’s knowledge industries and service economies
The Council regards BSF as an opportunity to develop schools fit for the 21st century and to place education at the heart of our strategy for community cohesion. The Council’s vision is to use the BSF programme to deliver:
• raised achievement and attainment across the town • schools which are fit for purpose, offering 21 st century learning environments • flexible curricular provision • flexibility to adapt to the needs of the learners of the future • improved provision for the most vulnerable students
1.4. Previous consultations and information sharing The first phase of the BSF non-statutory consultation took place in spring 2007 and focused on the vision and outline proposals. A booklet was distributed to parents, school staff and governors, supported by meetings in all secondary schools for governors, staff and parents and three further public meetings. A report summarising the process and outcomes was considered by the Council’s Cabinet on 18 th June 2007 and is available at www.oldham.gov.uk/bsf.
A further information campaign took place in Summer 2008, involving the widespread circulation of a booklet, ‘A Brighter Future’. This was supported by three public events at which the proposals were presented and questions invited. The events also provided an opportunity for interested parties to meet prospective Academy Sponsors.
Both previous rounds of consultation indicated that while there is broad support for the general vision to improve education, some concerns exist about school closures and Academies. The feedback received has been instrumental in helping the Council identify key concerns. Responses to many of these are now available via Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) fact sheets published on Oldham’s BSF website: www.oldham.gov.uk/bsf. The FAQ fact sheets were also made available at all meetings held as part of the statutory consultation exercise.
Several changes have been made to the programme in response to the feedback received during 2007 and 2008. The locations for the proposed Edutrust Academy and new Roman Catholic high school have been changed. The Oldham College became one of the three Academy sponsors, and the ‘Oldham model’ for Academies was created. This differs from the national model and includes key features such as:
Version 1 – August 06 34 • Oldham Academies will be non-selective and adopt the Local Authority’s admissions arrangements • Academies will adopt the national terms and conditions in respect of staff pay • Oldham’s sponsors are education based and not from the business sector
Version 1 – August 06 35
2. Consultation methodology
2.1. Consultation strategy An information pack was distributed to 35,901 families of children attending all secondary and primary schools within Oldham, plus all school staff and governors. The pack was also sent to trade unions, faith groups, neighbouring Local Authorities, and elected Members.
The consultation was launched with a presentation and exhibition at the Queen Elizabeth Hall on 17 th September 2008. 92 people attended. The event consisted of three presentations, question and answer sessions which took place at lunchtime, late afternoon and early evening.
The initial presentation and exhibition was followed by five consultation events at secondary schools in the fortnight beginning 29 th September. These consisted of formal presentations explaining the background and details of the proposals, input from the proposed Academy sponsors and opportunities for questions. They were followed by ten ‘drop-in’ sessions at feeder primary schools between 10 th October and 5 th November. The purpose of these was to give consultees further opportunities to ask questions and raise individual concerns. Separate consultation events for Council employees also took place on 24 th September and with Oldham’s Youth Council on 15 th October. A total of 207 people attended the meetings.
Table 2 - Consultation events Date Venue Type 17.09.08 Queen Elizabeth Hall Pre-launch presentation and exhibition event 24.09.08 Link Centre Council employees 01.10.08 Counthill Secondary School Consultation event 06.10.08 Grange School Consultation event 07.10.08 South Chadderton School Consultation event 08.10.08 Kaskenmoor School Consultation event 09.10.08 Breeze Hill School Consultation event 13.10.08 Medlock Valley Primary School Drop in session 14.10.08 Fir Bank School Drop in session 15.10.08 Yew Tree Primary School Drop in session 15.10.08 Youth Parliament Consultation event 20.10.08 Westwood Primary School Drop in session 21.10.08 Watersheddings Primary School Drop in session 22.10.08 Greenfield Primary School Drop in session 23.10.08 Limeside Primary School Drop in session 24.10.08 St Thomas Leesfield Primary School Drop in session 04.11.08 Crompton Primary School Drop in session 05.11.08 Alexandra Park Primary School Drop in session
Version 1 – August 06 36
2.2. Stakeholder engagement The strategy for stakeholder engagement is themed ‘Transforming Secondary Education’. It links into the Council’s recent rebrand with the strap-line ‘many prospects… one opportunity’. The strategy focuses on the wide range of benefits BSF will deliver and the fact that it represents a once in a lifetime opportunity to transform education across Oldham.
Publicity helped to raise awareness of the consultation and encouraged stakeholders to take part in the process by attending the events, requesting an information pack or visiting the Council’s BSF website for further information. The site also provided the opportunity to complete an online questionnaire and view a Transforming Secondary Education DVD.
Consultees consisted of parents/carers and students at the proposed closing schools which are Breeze Hill, Counthill, Grange, Kaskenmoor and South Chadderton, plus Hathershaw, the school proposed for expansion. The group also included parents/carers of pupils at all primary school, head teachers, school staff, governors, the local community, faith groups, trade union representatives, elected members, local MPs, neighbouring Local Authorities and emergency services.
Publicity used print and online advertising across local media. This included full-page advertisements in the Oldham Evening Chronicle (print and online), Oldham Advertiser (print and online), Asian News (online), and the Council’s Internet and Intranet. From 25 th September to the 9th October an advert also ran on 96.2 the Revolution radio station.
Press releases were distributed to the local media both before and during the consultation. This obtained excellent coverage with over 30 references in the local media and video footage on Channel M. During the period a four-page editorial appeared in the Council’s residents magazine, ‘One’, (circulation of 93,834), and a two and a half page editorial in the October edition of the Council’s Children, Young People and Families magazine, ‘The Link’ (circulation of 2,970).
2.3. Information pack The information pack consisted of an 18-page Transforming Secondary Education brochure, which set out the context for the programme, explained the rationale behind the proposals, the consultation process, how to find out more and how to express views.
The pack contained six inserts relating to the statutory consultation proposals (Closure of Breeze Hill, Counthill, Grange, Kaskenmoor and South Chadderton, and the expansion of Hathershaw), explaining the background behind the school closures and expansion, and including questionnaires to capture feedback. Also included were three information leaflets relating to the proposed Academies, developed in partnership with the sponsors.
An electronic version is available at www.oldham.gov.uk/bsf.
Version 1 – August 06 37 2.4. Questionnaire Feedback was captured primarily via a questionnaire included in the information packs, as well as being made available at each of the consultation and ‘drop-in’ events. An online questionnaire was also made available at www.oldham.gov.uk/bsf.
The questionnaire consisted of a two-page form capturing classification data, qualitative and quantitative feedback regarding the overall vision and individual proposals, plus demographic information including an equality and diversity section. All postal surveys included a freepost address. The questionnaire was designed to be completed once respondents had read the Transforming Secondary Education brochure, closing school leaflet, and the associated Academy sponsor leaflet. This informed respondents about the wider vision for BSF, the proposals and planned next steps. For respondents attending the consultation events, presentations followed a similar order.
Throughout this period further opinions and questions were recorded in event notes, via a dedicated email address ( [email protected]) , by a BSF freepost address and on a dedicated BSF telephone hotline (0161 770 3094).
2.5. Distribution and responses Information packs were made widely available. 28,500 copies were sent to families of pupils affected by the proposals. 5,776 were sent to school staff and supporting staff across all schools in the town. 1,625 packs were also sent to school governors. In line with legislative requirements of the consultation on the statutory proposals, copies were also sent to elected members, trade union representatives, faith groups, neighbouring Local Authorities, local partnerships, emergency services and groups affected within the council. The consultation pack was also made available on the Council’s website, at each of the events and by request.
Given the above it is likely that some households may have received more than one copy. This has made it difficult to calculate an accurate response rate. Also, taking into account the number of previous consultations, the level of response is viewed as low, but as expected. The findings have been subject to independent verification and analysis.
Version 1 – August 06 38 During the consultation period the Council received:
• 246 questionnaires, including 169 by post, and 54 from events. 23 questionnaires were collected via the online survey • the BSF Project Team actively engaged with 299 stakeholders at various consultation events • the Council also received 23 telephone enquiries, 43 email enquiries and 8 letters
Of the 246 completed questionnaires, 21% concerned Breeze Hill School, 21% Counthill, 13% Kaskenmoor, 12% Grange, 11% South Chadderton and 7% Hathershaw.
The majority of stakeholders responding to the consultation were parents and carers (60%), 17% were members of staff, 7% governors and 5% pupils. In terms of age groups 9% of the respondents are under 19 years old, 15% aged 20 to 30, 14% aged 30 to 40, 37% aged 40 to 50 years old and 25% aged 50 or over. In terms of ethnicity, 67% of all respondents were White British/Other and 30% were Asian or British Asian. This reflects the ethnic make up of Oldham.
Table 3 – Responses by ethnicity Population aged 16 and Respondents Oldham over Ethnicity (%) Population Ethnicity* (%) White British/Other 67.8 86.6 Asian or Asian British 28.7 10.9 Mixed 2.9 0.8 Black or British black 0.6 1 Chinese or other ethnic 0 0.6 group Total 100 99.9 No. of responses: 171. *Figures from ONS 2006 Population Consensus.
Table 4 - Responses by area Area % Waterhead 40 Hollinwood 18 Chadderton 16 Central Oldham 10 Royton and Shaw 10 Rochdale 3 Saddleworth 1 Failsworth 1 No. of responses: 210
Version 1 – August 06 39
3. Key findings – general summary
This section summarises the qualitative responses (i.e. general opinions) and the quantitative responses relating to the general plans.
3.1. ‘Do you understand how Oldham Council plans to transform secondary education?’ In response to this question 96% of all respondents replied ‘yes’.
3.2. Do you agree that there is a need to transform secondary education across Oldham? In response to the above question 63% of all respondents either strongly agreed or agreed.
Chart 1 – Need to transform education
Do you agree that there is a need to transform education across Oldham? (All Respondents)
70 60 50 40 63% (152) 30 30% 20 (72) % of respondents 10 7% (18) 0 Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree
Number of responses: 242
Version 1 – August 06 40 3.2.1 Age profile Across the majority of the different age groups there is agreement on the need to transform secondary education across Oldham.
Chart 2 - Need to transform education (age groups)
Do you agree that there is a need to transform secondary education across Oldham? (Age Groups)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40 84% 76% 72% 71%
% of % respondents (26) (57) 63% (13) (20) 30 (20)
20 11% 26% (5) 6% 22% 18% 19% (12) 10 (1) 4% (4) 16% (5) (14) (5) 11% (3) 0 (3) Under 19 20-30 30-40 40-50 50 and over Age Groups
Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree
Number of Responses: 198
3.2.2Stakeholders Agreement is also consistent across each of the stakeholder groups.
Chart 3 - Need to transform education (stakeholder groups)
Do you agree that there is a need to transform education across Oldham? (Stakeholders)
70
60 56% 50 (9) 62% 58% (26) 40 (7) 30 56% 33% (9) 44% 44% (4) 20 (7) 8% % of respondents % of respondents (7) 20% 20% (1) 10 (8) (8)
0 Governor Parent/carer Pupil Staff Stakeholders
Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree
Number of responses: 232
Version 1 – August 06 41 3.2.3Ethnic groups The majority of each ethnic group agree that there is a need to transform secondary education across Oldham.
Chart 4 - Need to transform education (ethnic groups)
Do you agree that there is a need to transform education in Oldham? (Ethnic Groups)
100 90 80 70 100% 100% 60 (1) (1) 50 40 66% 57% 67% 30 (94) (59) 38% (2) 33% 20 27% (26) (1)
% of respondents 10 (39) 0 White Asian or British Asian Black or British Black Mixed Race Chinese or other ethinic group Ethnic Groups
Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree
Number of responses: 216
3.3. Do you agree that these proposals will transform secondary education across Oldham? When asked the above question 49% of all respondents agreed.
Chart 5 – Proposals will transform secondary education
Do you agree that the proposals will transform secondary education across Oldham? (All Respondents) 60
50
40
30 49% 20 (118) 42% (102) % of respondents % respondents of 10 9.5% 0 (23) Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree
Number of responses: 243
Version 1 – August 06 42 3.3.1 Age profile The majority of age groups agreed that the proposals would transform secondary education.
Chart 6 – Proposals will transform secondary education (age groups)
Do you agree that these proposals will transform secondary education across Oldham? (Age Groups)
90 80 70 60 50 40 78% 68% 70% (14) 30 (21) 57% (33) (16) 53% 42% 9% % of 20respondents 6% 6% 29% 5% 26% (39) (31) 21% (4) (1) 17% (2) 14% (8) (4) 10 (8) (10) (3) (4) 0 Under 19 20-30 30-40 40-50 Over 50 Age Groups
Agree Neither agree or disagree Strongly disagree
Number of responses: 198
3.3.2 Stakeholders Most stakeholder also groups agreed that the proposals will transform secondary education.
Chart 7 – Proposals will transform secondary education (stakeholder groups)
Do you agree that these proposals will transform secondary education across Oldham? (Stakeholders)|
70 60 50 40 60% 56% 67% 30 52% (24) (9) 45% 8% 48% (8) 8% 38% 6% (13) 12% 36% 20 (62) (66) (1) 25% 15% (6) (1) (3) (9) (11) 25% 10 (3) (6) (10) %0 of Respondents Governor Other Parent/Carer Pupil Staff Stakeholders
Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree
Number of responses: 233
Version 1 – August 06 43 3.3.3.Ethnic groups The majority of ethnic groups agreed with the proposals.
Chart 8 – Proposals will transform secondary education (ethnic groups)
Do you agree that these proposals will transform secondary education across Oldham? (Ethnic Groups)
100 90 80 70 60
50 100% 100% 40 (1) (1) 30 49% 10% 56% (14) (38) 60% % of respondents (71) 40% 20 41% 4% 40% (3) 10 (59) (3) (27) (2) 0 White Asian or British Asian Chinese or other ethnic group Black or Black British Mixed Race Ethnic Groups
Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree
Number of responses: 220
Version 1 – August 06 44
3.4. Qualitative feedback 3.4.1 Vision 46 comments were received relating to the overall transforming secondary education vision. Over 40% of these supported the vision for Oldham including comments such as: "there needs to be change" and: "I really think it's time for Oldham to enjoy and benefit from what it can offer in the form of transformation of secondary education". A general feeling linking the negative responses is summarised as: "If schools need replacing they do not have to be replaced by Academies which have not proved to be the unqualified success claimed." However, only three comments supported the view that: "No there is no need for transformation in secondary education across Oldham as the facilities, resources and education presently available are good enough."
3.4.2 Existing buildings 28 comments were received relating to the continued use of existing schools, as opposed to the opening of new schools in new buildings. They touched on issues around future use of old buildings, concerns about the merging of schools, cost to the tax payer, affect on the local community if a school is closed, and making the most out of Oldham’s existing resources.
3.4.3 Size of schools The size of schools was also seen as an issue for consultees, with 16 comments received relating directly to the size of schools (i.e. with a capacity of 1500 places). Specific issues included concerns about whether there will be larger class sizes, preference for smaller schools, the worry that larger schools are more daunting for students and potential loss of personal learning.
3.4.4 Community cohesion The Council received 22 comments directly relating to community cohesion. Of these comments 18% supported the vision for community cohesion seeing this as "a great idea giving communities a chance to mix". Nine out of 22 comments expressed concern over the proposals taking into account past race issues, affect on communities and forced integration. Several comments were received relating to the focus on primary schools for lessons learnt in integrating communications. Questions were also asked about plans to tackle segregation and community cohesion.
3.4.5 Academies Over 40 comments were received on this topic. 10% of these expressed support for Academies while the majority were more questioning. 20% expressed support for the education vision but not by bringing Academies into the town. Others questioned whether Academies work, or raised issues around governance. Further comments questioned whether the BSF investment can take place without Academies. There was also some concern about a faith-based sponsor and a potential affect on the curriculum.
3.4.6 Staff
Version 1 – August 06 45 13 comments were received directly relating to staff issues. These included comments regarding how staff will transfer across to the Academies and confirming the vital role teaching has in transforming secondary education.
3.4.7 Transport Eight responses were received directly relating to traffic and transportation issues, although more opinions were expressed directly in relation to Academies. Concerns included transport changes, increased travel costs, how the changes may force students to travel further, congestion issues and the need to provide education facilities within catchment locality.
3.4.8 Transition A number of comments were received relating the transition of pupils to proposed Academies. These related to the need to minimise disruption to students during their exam periods, concerns around the period between community schools closing and the opening of the new Academies in new buildings, and questions about disruption during the period of refurbishment.
Version 1 – August 06 46
4. Key findings - school by school
The following tables summarise consultation responses in relation to closure or expansion of existing schools and to replacement of closing schools with Academies:
Chart 9 – Proposals to close schools
Do you agree with the proposal to close school X to help transform education in Oldham? (All Respondents)
90 80 70 60
50 18% 40 78% 73% (3) (38) (37) 55% 30 (17)
% of respondents of % 20 43% 46% 35% 4% 20% (12) 11% (13) 18% 10 18% 8% 65% (11) 10% (2) (10) (3) (3) (9) (4) (11) (3) 0 Breeze Hill Counthill Grange Kaskenmoor South Chadderton School Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree
Chart 10 – Proposals to replace schools with Academies
Do you agree with the proposal to replace school X with the new Academy? (All Respondents)
90
80 70
60
50 50% 40 33% (15) 73% (3) 30 78% 41% 52% 17% (35) (40) (11) (14) (5) 20 8% 33% % of respondents of % 4% 7% 33% 19% (4) 18% (10) 17% 10 (2) (2) (10) (9) (9) (5) 0 Breeze Hill Counthill Grange Kaskenmoor South Chadderton School Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree
Chart 11 – Proposals to expand Hathershaw
Do you agree with the proposal to expand Hathershaw to help transform education in Oldham?
80
70
60
50
40 69% (11) 30 % of respondents % of respondents 20 19% 10 (3) 13% (2) 0 Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree
Version 1 – August 06 47 4.1. Grange School Just under half of all respondents for Grange School disagree with the proposal to close the school to help transform education in Oldham, while 43% agreed. The majority of governors (67%) are in favour of the proposals. 64% of Asian and 50% of White British/Other respondents are in favour of the proposal.
52% of respondents disagree with the proposal to replace Grange with the new Edutrust Academy. There is significant difference in opinion between Asian and White British/Other respondents. 64% of Asian respondents agree with the proposal to replace Grange with the new Edutrust Academy, while only 25% White British/Other respondents agree.
21 comments regarding the proposal to close Grange were received. Of these, 25% supported the proposals including: "There is an urgent need for new schools, large enough to help the integration of the different communities, ideally religious interaction as well as racial.” Nearly 30% of the comments opposed the closure of Grange, with issues including loss of community and difficulty in travel being cited. Further comments raised questions around plans for future use of the site and doubts that the proposal will address underperformance.
4.2. Kaskenmoor School 55% of respondents for Kaskenmoor disagree with the proposal to close the school to help transform education in Oldham. This includes 56% of parent/carers and 83% of staff respondents who disagree with the proposal. In terms of ethnicity, 55% of White British/Other respondents disagree with the proposal. The findings show the reverse for Asian respondents with 57% in favour of the proposal.
50% of all respondents disagree with the proposal to replace Kaskenmoor School with the new Oasis Academy. Of the stakeholder groups, the most significant is the 62% of parent/carers who disagree with this proposal. 57% of Asian respondents and 42% of all White British/Others disagree with replacing Kaskenmoor with the new Oasis Academy.
16 comments were received directly relating to Kaskenmoor. Of these, three expressed support for the proposal and six raised concerns. Four comments were made regarding Kaskenmoor's links with Newbridge School and expressed concerns about how these will be affected if the Academy opens on a new site.
4.3. South Chadderton 59% of respondents for South Chadderton School disagree with the proposal to close the school to help transform education in Oldham. 50% of staff respondents agree, while 67% of parent/carers respondents disagree. 58% of White British/Others disagree with the proposals. In comparison Asians are equally divided with 50% disagreeing with proposals and 50% agreeing.
67% of all respondents disagree with the proposal to replace South Chadderton with the new Oasis Academy.50% of staff respondents agree, while 76% of parent/carer respondents disagree. Version 1 – August 06 48 71% of White British/Other respondents also disagree. Again, 50% of Asian respondents agree with the proposal, while the remaining 50% disagree.
The proposal to close South Chadderton received 21 comments, with three supporting and 18 against the proposals. A typical comment received read: "The proposals contain some very positive features and if achieved suggest great opportunities. Here the opportunities have developed hugely over recent years with the school not yet at the top of its improvement curve. South Chadderton School has most closely matched the ethnic balance for Oldham as a whole across the range of secondary schools. Would the new Academy reflect this as closely?"
4.4. Breeze Hill 78% of respondents for Breeze Hill School disagree with the proposal to close the school to help transform education in Oldham, with 18% in agreement. Of all responses the highest groups against include 75% of parent/carers and 71% of staff respondents. In terms of ethnicity 84% of the Asian or British Asian respondents and 81% of White British/Other respondents disagree with the proposal.
73% of respondents disagree with the proposal to replace Breeze Hill with the new Oldham College Academy. Of these 76% of parent/carers, 86% of staff and 100% of pupil respondents all disagree with the proposal to replace Breeze Hill with the new Oldham College Academy. This consists of 81% of British/Other and 67% of Asian or British Asian respondents.
27 comments directly relating to the proposal to close Breeze Hill were received. Just over 50% of these expressed concern regarding the proposed closure, especially in light of recent improvements. Typical comments received reflected sentiments such as: "I think this is an excellent school which has been developed a lot in a very short space of time and changing everything for the students at this time is out of place." Concerns raised also related to facilities at the existing school, distance to the new school and general concerns such as: "why fix something that isn't broken?"
4.5. Counthill 73% of all respondents for Counthill School disagree with the proposal to close the school to help transform education in Oldham. Of these, 76% of parent/carers, 75% of governors and 57% of staff respondents opposed closing Counthill School. 78% of White British/Other respondents disagree. In comparison 60% of Asian respondents agree.
78% of respondents disagree with the proposal to replace Counthill with the new Oldham College Academy. This breaks down to 80% of parent/carers, 75% of governors and 71% of staff respondents. 80% of White British/Other respondents disagree with the proposal to replace Counthill with the new Oldham College Academy. Asian respondents are equally divided with 50% agreeing and 50% disagreeing.
Version 1 – August 06 49 The Counthill proposal received some 30 comments of which 19 expressed concern. Representative issues were around the loss of a prime site with the potential for excellent sporting facilities; the view that the Council should invest in existing buildings and the potential effect on the local community. The responses generated a range of questions which are to be addressed by the Council in the near future. These comments will be considered alongside those relating to Breeze Hill and Oldham College Academy.
4.6. Hathershaw 69% of all respondents for the Hathershaw College of Sports & Technology agree with the proposal to expand the school in order to help transform education in Oldham. Parent/carers respondents are strongly in favour with 82% agreeing with the proposal to expand Hathershaw.
White British/Other and Asian respondents are in favour with 75% and 71% respectively.
59% of all respondents agree that the proposals will transform secondary education across Oldham. The majority of parent/carers (62%) agree, as do the majority of White British/Other and Asian respondents.
Only six comments were received relating directly to the proposal to expand Hathershaw by one form of entry. The majority of these were supportive. One negative comment concerned the size of the school possibly affecting student performance and one expressed concern that improving the school’s appearance will not necessarily mean student standards improve.
Version 1 – August 06 50
5. Response to key concerns The consultation indicated high levels of support for the vision to transform secondary education in the town and reinforced the outcome of previous consultation rounds.
The consultation has raised the level of awareness of the vision and the BSF programme among key audiences and stakeholders. It has alerted the Council to key concerns stakeholders have. Consideration of these issues will be built into the development of the programme.
The Council is committed to ensuring stakeholders are involved with ongoing consultations and 103 respondents from across Oldham’s diverse communities have volunteered to take part in future activities, helping to ensure the concerns of stakeholders are worked through.
The consultation illicited comments about both specific school proposals and about the BSF programme as a whole. In this section we analyse and respond to the key issues and concerns raised about the programme as a whole.
In summary these issues are related to: • Maintaining the status quo • Academies • Suitability of sites • Community cohesion • Size of schools • Transport and traffic • Transition
5.1.1. Maintaining the status quo Some consultees expressed the view that they would prefer to modernise the existing buildings or build new schools on existing sites. The Council’s response to this is as follows:
• BSF is a once in a lifetime opportunity to transform the secondary school estate and with it the learning opportunities of the town’s young people.
• BSF investment is given to transform learning, which means we can’t just replace like for like. Some schools can be refurbished to make them fit for the 21st century, but for others the condition and suitability of the buildings is such that schools need to be either substantially remodelled or closed and rebuilt.
• There are too many places in the current school system. Government will only release the BSF investment if the Council tackles the issue of surplus places.
5.1.2. Academies
Version 1 – August 06 51 Some consultees expressed a view that Oldham should move ahead without building Academies.
Academies are the Government’s preferred model for tackling underachieving schools, especially where attainment falls below the 30% threshold for 5 A*-C GCSE’s. Government expects new schools to be either Academies or to seek Trust of Foundation status. In this sense Academies are ‘the only game in town!’
Academies bring extra funding with them and without their inclusion in the programme, the overall level of funding would be less. They also bring sponsors who are committed to transforming learning for our young people.
In response to concerns about Academies, Oldham has brought forward a model which differs from elsewhere.
• Oldham Academies will be non-selective and adopt the Local Authority’s admissions arrangements • Academies will adopt the national terms and conditions in respect of staff pay • Oldham’s sponsors are education based and not from the business sector
5.1.3. Suitability of sites Concerns were raised about the choice of the sites for the new proposed Academies. Finding sites on which to build new schools is not an easy task. In a confined urban environment where previous industrial uses present challenges for alternative uses, sites are very limited. It is unlikely the proposed sites would meet universal approval. The sites for the three new Academies have been chosen carefully and with the assistance of independent advisers are believed to be the best available in Oldham. In choosing these sites, the Council has taken the following into account:
• sites are big enough to deliver the curriculum • projected forecast of required places and where schools need to be located • when bringing two schools together a neutral site, not linked to one school or the other gives the new school the best start and chance to succeed • increases the cultural mix. This means that new schools must be in places that are accessible to all of Oldham’s communities • the sites are big enough to provide outstanding facilities, including play areas and facilities for sports, or in the case of Brook Mill to use playing fields directly adjacent to the site. This would mean that pupils would not have to leave the site during the day • technical considerations about the site and whether a school could be built there • financial and affordability considerations
5.1.4. Community cohesion
Version 1 – August 06 52 As well as aiming to ensure that every child has the very best chance of success, a key aim of the BSF programme is to achieve integrated schools which have a mix of students from different ethnic and social backgrounds. This will help to make Oldham a place where young people grow up being comfortable with each others’ differences.
Community cohesion will be strengthened in a number of ways. For example, it was one of the factors in choosing the proposed Iocation for the new schools; ensuring that these are located in places which will attract a diverse mix of pupils and choosing neutral locations rather than bringing schools together on existing sites.
As part of planning for change a team is focussing on the community cohesion aspects of the BSF programme, including working closely with the Academy sponsors. The community cohesion issues relating to each school are different and a tailored plan is being developed for each. This will involve a wide range of people including students, parents/carers, staff, governors as well as other members of local communities and from a wide range of local organisations and groups. A workshop will be held in early 2009 to involve people in developing local plans further.
Some of the issues to be considered include:
• providing opportunities for people to talk about their concerns and how to solve them • enabling students from different communities to get to know each other before schools merge (such as through school linking activities and drama or sports projects) • building links between groups of parents/carers from different schools and communities • planning the process for merging schools • developing the skills of staff for working in integrated schools • preparing curriculum resources which reflect Oldham’s diverse communities • considering transport issues • and ensuring the physical design of schools will meet the needs of both pupils and communities and takes account of the need to ensure pupils’ safety in and around schools.
5.1.5. Size of schools The increase in the size of new schools to 1500 places was also raised as a concern. Oldham has learned a great deal from the development of two new 1500 place secondary schools, The Radclyffe and Failsworth schools which opened in 2008.
The schools have been designed so that subject blocks are close together, pupils can find their way around easily, and social spaces are plentiful. This helps to build a stronger sense of community, staff and pupils know each other and feel safe and confident in their new environment. This good practice will be applied to the larger schools within the BSF programme.
5.1.6. Transport and traffic
Version 1 – August 06 53 Transport and traffic were also raised as areas of concern. It is accepted that there is a lot of detailed work to do to address traffic and congestion issues. Any new school will need to be fully integrated with the public transport network and there will be additional measures to minimise congestion and tackle road safety concerns and develop green and sustainable travel plans for each school. For example, staggered start and finish times for schools is under consideration so that all students do not arrive and depart at the same time and traffic is managed accordingly.
Before any school is built, planning permission will need to be approved and our detailed proposals for traffic management will be form part of this planning process. The safety and convenience of both pupils and nearby residential communities will be considered.
5.1.7. Transition A number of comments were received relating to the transition of pupils to the proposed Academies. Safeguarding children’s education is a priority for the Council and effective transition arrangements are the key to success. It is a priority to ensure that when the programme starts there is minimal disturbance or impact on any young person’s education during the transition to a new school and during refurbishment. The experience and lessons learnt from the recent moves to Oldham’s new Radclyffe and Failsworth schools will be applied and individual transition plans will be developed for each school. Particular care and effort will be taken to minimise any disruption to pupils in examination years.
Version 1 – August 06 54
6. Conclusion
The consultation exercise has provided a snapshot of knowledge and perception of the BSF programme among Oldham stakeholders. It has flagged overall support for the programme alongside key concerns. The Council has responded to these concerns directly and will build further consideration of them into the development of the BSF programme.
The character and nature of the response from consultees is helpful in informing the Council of the wider views and issues within communities about the proposals. In coming to a decision about the implementation of these proposals, these views need to be taken into account, along with a set of wider issues about the future of Oldham. The BSF programme represents an opportunity to change the quality and nature of education provision for the next two generations of Oldham young people. In considering this responsibility, it is important to consider the wider economic regeneration of the Borough. This means taking into account Oldham's place within the economic growth of the region, and the challenges and opportunities which this presents in terms of future skill needs. Educational provision needs to ensure that all Oldham young people enter adult life fully equipped to take advantage of those opportunities and meet those challenges. The more that Oldham's educational provision is able to achieve this, the more attractive Oldham will be as a place to live, to learn, and to work.
The Council will keep in touch with parents’ views via further consultation throughout the lifetime of the programme.
Appendix A Consultation events questions
Version 1 – August 06 55
The secondary school and associated consultation events raised many questions and these were all recorded. Many of these issues have already been answered. For further information please reference Oldham’s FAQ fact sheets.
LINK CENTRE (24.09.08) If there is no 6 th form provision will there be places at the Oldham College and Sixth Form? I don’t see the logic of putting two schools together. Why is this? What will happen to the playing fields at Counthill? I’m concerned that the Orb Mill is too small. How would you answer this? Will new developments increase interaction between other agencies? If schools closing/merging will all teachers have to apply for new jobs? Will you listen to people with ideas around children with disabilities? In my catchment area, I’m not too sure whether my child will go to Saddleworth or the new Academy? Local primary schools are very good with integration. How do we educate parents? What consequences will occur? We need to integrate parents. I’m worried about two failing schools being put together.
COUNTHILL (01.10.08) Will the proposed new Academy be the same as Failsworth and Radclyffe, and not several stories high? Will there be sufficient playing fields during the day? It appears to best place to have a school, but will it have to be highrise to fit all the sports facilities on site? Counthill has a strong sporting tradition. How will these be continued? Are your projections for pupils are accurate? There are too many children in two schools to put into one. We caused falling rolls by announcing that the schools were closing. Traffic issues - 1500 pupils on schools buses; where will the bus route be? Crompton House and Blue Coat - other nominated faiths. Have they taken on students ability? Where will their catchment areas be? Pupils doing their GCSE’s in 2010 will their education suffer? You will find that you will lose the best teachers as they will be actively looking for alternative employment. Would children stay at Counthill until the new Academy opens? At the feasibility stage why can’t you opt to change the site? On the site there was a refused application for housing so how can it be safe to have a school there? What happens to the Counthill site when the school shuts? Will it be used for social usage? Can we build the Academy on the existing site?
Version 1 – August 06 56 To what extent will the 6 th form college be involved? Why do you/we want a new site? Could we not have two smaller Academies?
GRANGE (06.10.08) Are teachers going to be recruited by the sponsor or the governing body? Where are the teachers going to go when the school closes? The majority of pupils are Asian. What will be done to attract white pupils? How are we going to address underperformance? How do primary schools fit into all this? Is the Local Authority using the tables of performance to get more money? Have you been thinking about how you will mix primary schools? Why are Church of England schools better than Local Authoirty controlled schools? If the Bengali community want to buy the land that Grange is on could they do this? What is planned for the land once Grange has gone? Is the decision already made that the school will move to Royton? Is there a problem why the Academy cannot be out onto this site? The Oldham College mixes so why not put the new school here? What is the piece of land for the all-weather pitch going to be used for? How are we going to get by for the next four years (for example new roofing)? Are there any strategies for the community cohesion side? Who is involved? How are you going to implement this? The way the new Academies are located are you suggesting that the ethnicity groups are being forced out as in the town centre there will only be Blue Coat and Saddleworth taking facilities away from the community. Can you elaborate on the admissions criteria? Can you not use an alternative site? What facilities will we have? Why is the Council spending money on trams and not education? What kind of problems are there going to be? What community cohesion strategies will be brought into primaries? Why do you feel the need for Edutrust to come in when Oldham’s LA, Oldham College etc. has already produced good, mixed education? Not convinced of the privatisation of Academies. What will they bring?
SOUTH CHADDERTON (07.10.08) How many Youth Workers are employed in the Oasis Academy? How many support staff, excluding Youth workers, are working in Oasis? In this school there is a ratio of support staff? What is Oasis’s ratio of support staff? How explicit is the ethos of Christianity as there will be more Asian pupils?
Version 1 – August 06 57 Are you intending to still have the pupils on separate sites? What will be the impact of this? What would be the religious ethos in the new Academy? What provision will you provide if parents do not want to send their children to a religious Academy? Will there be an opportunity to joint plan the curriculum? What sort of percentage is the Enfield Academy of Muslim pupils? Is this just a way to get private money? Has the Brook Mill site been decided on? What will be done in the transitional phase when students are undertaking their GCSE’s? How was it decided which schools had to be refurnished? Why is South Chadderton not being re-developed on this site? There is an interim period between 2010 and 2012; what will happen in that time? Your buildings will be outdated in 20 years. Will you update them then? Why are we not consulted on where the site will go? Why take this school away from the local area? The Brook Mill site is unsuitable. If you take this school away we will have no community. Why can’t we just re-build both schools on their sites? How do the children work together (i.e. school rival, etc)? Will doctors be safe on a school site? Strangers coming onto the site. Is it a “done deal”? Can we take it further to express our view that we are not happy with the site that has been proposed?
KASKENMOOR (08.10.08) If the Oasis Academy is a fully inclusive school why is question 6 on your questionnaire? Has the LA looked at the site across the road? Have you seriously considered the site? Why has it been discounted?
Would a graph be available?
Will children join the Academy on 2 sites?
Social cohesion agenda. How can 2 mono ethnic schools become multi- ethnic? The scatter graphs show Muslims go to St Augustines because it’s their Local school.
If the Council accepts Academies what proportion of staff would you use?
Is it possible for Oasis to do their work in the existing 2 schools instead of merging the 2 schools? Concerned about the behaviour on the streets.
Will there be more pupils in the classes?
What about pupils taking exams during the transition period. Will they be disrupted and have to have different teachers?
What about children with learning difficulties?
Version 1 – August 06 58 What % of staff actually transfer?
Some pupils are intimidated by big schools. Can we not have smaller schools?
What about the head teachers? Would you only have one?
Would pupils have to travel to South Chadderton for some lessons?
What area people representing were from? Where they are all from Oldham?
How much money have we actually got?
Would you like to see the schools close?
Is there a selection basis of faith?
Is there any way that parents can visit the Oasis Academy?
How do you nurture essential skills in students?
Will we get help with the cost of uniforms?
Will there be pastoral support?
BREEZE HILL (09.10.08) At the proposed Centre of Excellence will you charge to use the facilities here? You aren’t helping the poorer communities. People from Glodwick send their children here. The Orb is too far for them. If schools don’t reach the required levels of GCSE are you hoping that they will and are you hoping to achieve community cohesion? How will two low achieving schools change for the better? It a great idea giving communities a chance to mix. There are problems that children have faced. With regards to issues here and at Counthill with racism, what are you going to do to get children to work together? What are you going to do to combat racism? What facilities are you having? What are going to do to raise attainment? Smaller schools such as faith schools do better rather than big ones. With the map size shown; how do you expect to get children in a site that’s half the size? How interdependent is one thing upon another in the BSF project? Where will the new school at Saddleworth be located? What’s intended with Breeze Hill site - sports hall, pitches, swimming pool? What’s going to happen to the Breeze Hill site? How are you going to support deprived communities who may not speak English? The Bishop is rejecting the site. Do we not get a choice where the site will be? Has the Bishop been offered the Breeze Hill site? Travelling will be an issue. Can you guarantee that there will be yellow buses? What effect will it have on the area if something else is built in the site? Will you able to tell us
Version 1 – August 06 59 what will happen to it before a final decision is made? What is the distance measured in on the map. If it’s a bird’s eye view GMPTE don’t measure it that way they and we won’t qualify they measure it by the roads and routes. Segregation is a problem in Oldham. Do you know how you’re going to tackle the merger? Is it just Oldham College that is funding the Academy? What facilities will it have? It looks as though we will have fewer facilities. The swimming pool will be taken away this is taking away an opportunity for Muslim girls. Can you elaborate on the off-site facilities? How will the management work? What is the time limit on the sites? Why is there no investment in Islamic schools? Can you provide information around why the Consterdine Street and Wellyhole Street sites weren’t chosen?
YOUTH COUNCIL (15.10.08.08) Does it include Hulme? Were young people consulted before proposals on academies were decided? Young people need to be involved in planning process early? What can we do to resolve segregation issues? What about transgender, LGBT issues. Unisex toilets for instance and additional inclusive support? How will we ensure behaviour change just because we have a new school? How will we stop damage and graffiti from occurring? Why travel further when schools close? What about transport changes to meet needs and reduce fares? Failsworth flooded. Will we be spending a lot of money and seE schools flooded? During refurbishment will learning time be lost? Will there be CCTV in all new schools. If so, it makes you paranoid? Breeze Hill and Counthill has a reduction in number from2300 to 1500 places. Where are the other 800 going to go? Some schools teachers are horrendous. What will you do – will you just let them in? Will new schools have extra services for the community? Improve apprenticeships because not enough now?
Version 1 – August 06 60 Appendix B Summary of comments
During the consultation period all qualitative feedback was recorded anonymously. The comments have been divided into groups beginning with the vision, existing buildings, size, community cohesion, Academies, staff, transport, and transition. Further comments are then grouped into the proposed closures and proposed new Academies. Positive and negative comments are noted. A final section lists any additional queries raised.
Vision 46 comments were received directly relating to the transforming secondary education vision. Over 40% of these supported the vision of Oldham including comments such as "there needs to be change", and "I really think it's time for Oldham to enjoy and benefit from what it can offer in the form of transformation of secondary education". A general feeling linking the negative responses is summarised as: "If schools need replacing they do not have to be replaced by Academies which have not proved to be the unqualified success claimed." Very few comments however supported the view that: "No there is no need for transformation in secondary education across Oldham as the facilities, resources and education presently available are good enough."
POSITIVE While most schools can claim modest increases in performance league tables something radical is needed to make a big difference. It’s a shame that among all the incredible and positive plans people find it necessary to focus on the negative. I am personally interested in what plans there may be to address the emotional needs of children, aspirations, self belief and confidence. There needs to be change. I really think it's time for Oldham to enjoy and benefit from what it can offer in the form of transformation of the secondary education. I believe that every pupil should be given the best opportunities that are available to them. I hope the children will benefit from these new Academies. Not to discuss a specific site, I think the proposals in general seem good. In order to make changes and improve facilities some schools will have to go have a new built in order to cater for the new requirements. This could present new ways of learning. The sooner we get this in plan is the sooner we will generate unity and excellence. Any change has an impact. Yes a wider range of opportunities for students. I have a positive attitude towards the proposals and hope that the end result will be a massive success. If transform means change then yes! Yes students will enjoy school and learning. Improvements in exam results because the comfort of being in a new safe school.
Version 1 – August 06 61 What we need is an education service which will meet the needs of the whole community. Some areas may need total transformation, others partial transformation. To blanket the whole would not necessarily serve the needs of our community. Clearly some change and development is required. An outcome which would genuinely benefit the community that we all care deeply for. With a modernised school, pupils will be able to motivate ourselves more towards our education. I think it would benefit all the kids in the long run. All sections of the community should benefit in this investment. Yes, the young people should have better education.
GENERAL You aren’t helping the poorer communities. I do not agree in closing 5 schools and reducing into 3. There is already overcrowding in schools and I am sure that the ridiculous amount of money being spent on this project could be better spent on the schools already in existence. No teaching at these schools or the resources available presently benefits children's education and learning. Do not think individuals should have a monetary, moral or ethical influence over OUR children! Is this just a way to get private money? We want money spent on teachers and improving education. We want smaller more local schools with good teaching. Good teaching not large buildings will transform. Schools should have had more help from the Local Authority to maintain the building over the past few years. We face years of disruption ahead which will cost. The education and attention these children will suffer whilst change is embedded. I am not convinced that this is a price worth paying! Why would they? How? You will still have the same children attending and same teachers teaching, so what will transform? Transforming education is not just about buildings, quality of teaching and teaching methods should be looked at and improved. For the worst. Forcing people together is not the answer and placing schools in areas not suitable for all is not the answer and inaccessible to some. Having modern schools does not necessarily mean that results will improve above national average. Teaching styles, resources, standards of teaching and learning need to change for the better. New buildings are a good idea, though the current management of the change seems unfocused and certainly unlikely to result in happy ethnicity mixed schools for several years. These proposals will cause significant disruption but I fail to see how they will improve education standards. No I don't agree. There is enough evidence that bigger is better.
Version 1 – August 06 62 Not for the good of the pupils and teachers. They will transform it for the worse. I think the issues haven't been thought through as well as they should be. They'll change it but not necessarily for the better I thought at the then brand new Kaskenmoor and it wasn't as good as you'll get a lot of " top dressing" publicity and pretty pictures but it needs a miracle to create traditions instantly. Face up to the truth about Failsworth. I think it will cause too many problems. Young people need to be offered more vocational options; not just academic ones. The method used to teach education needs to change. Having an Academy is not the solution, instead invest money in improving education standards and better improved facilities. There is no need for transformation in secondary education across Oldham as the facilities, resources and education presently available are good enough. I agree secondary education needs a transformation but not in the way Oldham Council plans. You are keeping the schools in good areas and keeping the 2 CofE schools, so all you are doing is mixing up children from the poorest backgrounds. The 3 Academies will house the poorest pupils mix in the CofE schools and all the others too. If schools need replacing they do not have to be replaced by Academies which have not proved to be the unqualified success claimed. Elsewhere money has been made available for conventionally schools still accountable to Local Authorities. Big schools present big problems in organisation and discipline, the combining of two schools will lead to mutual antagonism, and overcrowded sites with inadequate sport facilities will exasperate the problem.
Existing buildings 28 comments were received relating to the use of existing buildings. Issues raised included what will become of the old buildings, why merge two schools, cost to the tax payer, affect on the local community if a school is closed, and making the most out of what Oldham has.
GENERAL Secondary education in Oldham needs strengthening. Build on the strengths of the existing schools on existing sites. Not closures. This should be done within the schools we have in the Oldham area. What will become of the building that will be closed down? Will they just be left to get vandalised? By improving existing schools not merging schools. I think that the existing schools should be made into better schools the money could be spent on the schools. Schools need modernising but not the complete re-organisation planned. All these schools should be refurbished and left where they are otherwise the ethos of our school will be ruined. If you could transform schools - do existing ones first. Spend the money improving the existing schools and do NOT privatise our education. Why not invest and upgrade the present buildings. We see no need to merge two schools onto one wholly inadequate site.
Version 1 – August 06 63 On one hand we have the schools that will join and become one Academy placing the old which surely will cost tax payers goodness knows what when you could upgrade existing buildings and save long term. If you would be interested see the figures and the reasons behind and if this is the best way forward why knock existing buildings down - instead use them and put to better use. On the other hand aren’t these changes just out with the old in with the new- what’s wrong with old ways and coupled with new update ways to deliver education to the children of our future. The BSF plans will break up communities and force people to move or travel more just to get their children to school. So why not develop on the school we have because we are not all privileged or have the money to move house or even own a car in these difficult times. Closing schools is not the answer. Developing our current schools is. Can we build the Academy on the existing site? Why can’t we just re-build both schools on their sites? Surely money is better spent on developing existing sites that have adequate space rather than incurring the costs of site purchase, clearance etc. (Counthill). I do not agree with any school closing to form an Academy. I do agree with old buildings being replaced with new buildings at the same site or at an agreed site, but remaining under LA control. Should put money into modifying existing building. Money should be spent on the existing buildings, given the fact that new sports facilities are adjacent to site. Why can't we just update the current schools as we have at Radclyffe and Failsworth. This would seem a better option. Don't mend it (the schools ethos and traditions) if it isn't broken. Get a good head, yes some buildings do need updating but the new buildings don't necessarily mean better education. I have seen brilliant learning in a poor building. A new building doesn't guarantee quality of teaching as the teachers will be those already employed by Oldham LEA in existing schools. Only in facilities, BSF and especially the ICT side is going to destroy the systems in Failsworth and Radclyffe. Would prefer to upgrade the system we have within the existing buildings and education systems which we already have. Whilst some upgrading is required, we don't agree that this is the way I feel that the existing school should be updated and expanded instead of spending money on new buildings. I believe the money should be spent on refurbishing our schools across the borough and the suggestion that only a fraction of the money would then be made available sounds very much like blackmail to me. Why take this school away from the local area?
Size of schools
Version 1 – August 06 64 The size of schools with 1500 places was also seen as an issue for consultees with 16 comments expressed. Specific issues included concerns about whether there will be larger class sizes, that larger schools are daunting for students and lead to a loss of personal learning and that smaller schools are preferable.
GENERAL Will there be more pupils in the classes? Some pupils are intimidated by big schools. Can we not have smaller schools? We do not want our children to go to a school with 1500 pupils They would prefer that their children attended smaller school. Having gone to work in education late in my career I see first hand the problems caused by larger schools, something that will become worse with your proposals. Small schools and small classes where management and teachers know all the pupils have and always will provide a better education. I feel there will be too many pupils in one environment at one time. It has been tired and tested in America and has failed. Large capacity schools are not always best for some young people. A small well run secondary school would be just as beneficial. People don't just need state of the art resources they need to feel safe and cared for. I feel secondary schools should have a primary school feel to help students make the transition from primary easier. Having taught for large agricultural colleges and smaller ones, the smaller ones have the better quality of teaching. How can you hope to know 90 odd pupils in your set? Impossible. Smaller schools such as faith schools do better rather than big ones. My only concern is the transformation for pupils may be very daunting given the size and lose of personal touch. Not yet convinced that large schools are the way forward. They are extremely difficult for children with special needs. Not for the better. We in Oldham will have no control over education. Children must be taught in smaller groups not like in classes of 90 as in West Tipton. Evidence suggests that pupils achieve more in smaller school environments.
Too large a number of pupils at Academies, so children will lose their identity. Education in Oldham is a mixed bag of good and poor schools. We need more small community schools, ideally with 6th forms to set a good example to younger pupils. Academies are huge faceless businesses and I think this is a retrograde step. Secondary schools should be made smaller, not larger. Your proposals to integrate two schools into one is a recipe for disaster. Not by making schools intake larger on a substantially smaller site or forcing cohesion. These mega schools will be just like other Academies - laden with disruption, offering little to nothing for the bright kids in the town and no more than the existing schools offer to the rest. But they will be relatively cheap and side line control so that the Council cannot be held accountable.
Version 1 – August 06 65 Community cohesion The Council received 22 comments and a range of questions directly relating to community cohesion. 18% supported the vision for community cohesion seeing this as: "a great idea giving communities a chance to mix". Nine out of 22 comments expressed concern over the proposals taking into account past race issues, affect on communities and forced integration. Several comments suggested focusing on the primary schools for lessons learnt in integrating communities.
POSITIVE It a great idea giving communities a chance to mix. There are problems that children have faced. With regards to issues with racism, what are you going to do to get children to work together? What are you going to do to combat racism? What facilities are you having? For the good of Oldham's future and communal peace we need to bring all the communities together. You must promote social well being in all schools in the borough. You cannot have a school where the majority are Roman Catholic another school where pupils are all Asian and so on.
NEGATIVE Moving the school will create concerns with the pupil’s education bearing in mind the race issues in Oldham. I think that putting two schools together is asking for trouble and it would be a good idea to employ security because there would be too many children for the teachers to control. Communities will be lost if local schools are closed. Combining Breeze Hill School will be a great opportunity to be a multi-ethnic community; this Academy will have a big response from the Asian community I believe. I don't think integrating pupils of different cultural backgrounds would work. Forced integration will cause further problems between communities paving the way for more extremism. It will cause segregation with pupils from separate schools merging together. There will be more racial incidents involving students
QUESTIONS What can we do to resolve segregation issues? How do the children work together (i.e. school rival, etc)? Are there any strategies for the community cohesion side? Who is involved? How are you going to implement this? Segregation is a problem in Oldham. Do you know how you’re going to tackle the merger? My concerns are who is going to start integrating the children? When is this going to start? How do you propose to do it? How can 2 mono-ethnic schools become multi- ethnic? The scatter graphs show Muslims go to St Augustines because it’s their local school. How do we educate parents? What consequences will occur? We need to integrate parents.
Version 1 – August 06 66 I’m worried about 2 failing schools being put together. What community cohesion strategies will be brought into primaries?
PRIMARY SCHOOL Local primary schools are very good with integration. Community cohesion should start at nursery age not suddenly start at age 11. Have you been thinking about how you will mix primary schools?
Academies Over 40 comments were received directly relating to the introduction of Academies. 10% of these expressed support for Academies while the majority expressed concern, including 20% who expressed support for the education vision but not for Academies. Other concerns included the perceived lack of proof that Academies work, issues with governance, the understanding that BSF investment can take place without Academies and concerns of a faith-based sponsor and potential affect on the curriculum.
POSITIVE I am very excited about the new Academies in Oldham! I think it will bring great opportunities for the whole community. I took my child out of borough for secondary education but do not think that would have been necessary if these Academies had been available at the time. They look amazing and it almost makes you want to go back to school. Education needs to take hold of the life issues and drawing youth in Academies spent and practical applications. Academies have proof that they provide a better education.
GENERAL Support BSF but not Academies. The BSF programme is a good programme with a good insight into improving learning. I do agree that most, if not all, schools outlined do require change, but I do not agree Academies are a long term way of dealing with this problem. I agree there is a need to transform education across Oldham but not by the provision of Academies. Education needs to change and develop, building on its existing strengths. Academies will rip the heart out of Oldham's provision for the sake of political dogma. I agree that there is a need to change secondary education in Oldham but the proposals to set up Academies are not the way to do it. I completely disagree with proposals for Academies but do believe that there is a need for new community schools which would remain under the control of the LA. Yes, we want the best for the children of Oldham, but the way I see it is that a lot of children in Oldham would receive a worse education if the Academies are created. BSF money does not have to be spent on Academies; other towns have used that money differently.
Version 1 – August 06 67 Why do we have to have Academies and not just extend rebuild or refurbish the present schools on the same site? You have done it at Failsworth and propose to do it at Crompton House Royton and Crompton and others why not the others in this town? In common with many I suspect, I do not agree with the idea of Academies. I think Oldham needs to obtain more money for schools in Oldham to improve the future for the young people of Oldham, but I am not convinced that a case has been made for Academies. It seems to me that after they start, they will not really need to follow the Local Authority's views on education, and that they will be able to go their own way. I find it hard to support such a move in a town like Oldham. I think the Academies will bring along similar problems just like the schools we have now. Clumping all schools together as in proposed Academies will only result in less personalisation for pupils and increased segregation. I fail to understand how moving the same children, same teachers and same skills to an Academy will improve achievement. If they can improve things in a new setting why aren't they doing it already? Please, please listen to us. We don't want an American ethos. I suggest Oldham claims the money from the government it spends on its educating its own children without involving 3rd parties, some of whom are commercial organisations. Not convinced of the privatisation of Academies. What will they bring? We don't want it replaced with an Academy just a new school but with better teachers. No, I don't agree with privatisation of public services we will end up paying more in the long run. Academy sponsors in general are not there for the long haul. Council’s and LA’s are. Some sponsors, especially of poorly performing Academies, are likely to withdraw. Throughout the country PFI's have been found not to be an improvement and to work out more expensive in the long run for the tax payer. What we want for our children is smaller local schools which teach all subjects well and have committed dedicated excellent teachers. This initiative is focusing on buildings which won't last. By giving control of secondary education to outside bodies who knows what education our children will receive. The only schools in Oldham that many parents want to send their children to is Church of England schools. You should be asking yourselves how LEA schools can be brought up to the same standards and Academies are not the right way. I believe that Academies would not transform secondary education across Oldham in the way it is needed. We already have divisions between faith schools and non-faith schools. Academies would create a 3-tier system. Education would be transformed for all our pupils if community schools, which were accountable to LAs, were established in each area with the help of BSF money. Academies don't work. The new schools will be far too large and too faraway. Education in Oldham will probably take decades to recover from what these huge Academies will do to it.
IMPROVEMENTS VIA ACADEMIES
Version 1 – August 06 68 Academies are so far not proven to be successful or to raise standards. Just because you provide a new, state of the art building does not mean that standards will improve. I would actually far rather my children attend a well-established schools that is old and in need of repair than attend an Academy. I do not feel comfortable with the idea of Academies being sponsored by a charity/ college are these organisations truly equipped with the necessarily skills and resources to run our schools? Where is the proof? Academies have yet to be proven beyond doubt. An Academy is not the answer. It will be a short term reaction to a social and environmental problem. Academies do not work there is data to prove this! No data available to prove Academies will perform better than current education systems. Academies have not improved standards or job opportunities
RELIGION How would a religious sponsor change the academic achievements, especially if the child is not from a religious background? Surely faith is, and should be, taught at home, not school? You imply that a religious sponsor (Muslim or Christian) will not impose their views on the pupils. So, if that is the case, why is this sponsorship to their advantage? And how about we who don't want any dealings with religion-what choice do we have?
CURRICULUM Why are Academies allowed to adjust their curricula rather than every school having the same one? I know core subjects are proposed to be the same but if a pupil moves house and joins another school, even in the same town, his / her "other" subject may not be offered, or may be taught differently.
BSF INVESTMENT WITHOUT ACADEMIES BSF can be obtained without Academies! I feel Oldham Council should fight the Government and not be blackmailed into building Academies.
GOVERNANCE I am wary of the Academy proposal which will lead to unnecessary pressures on governing bodies to submit to the view of whoever is influencing Governors’ decisions The principal behind Academies is wrong. Local schools should only be accountable to and influenced at the communities they serve not to the self interests of others unaccountable organisations such as colleges, business or others. Academies will not be answerable to the people of Oldham and will not have the benefit of advice and support from the Education Department. I strongly believe that no private sponsor, be it a college (who, after all, have no experience of running a secondary school which is completely different to a college where all the student have chosen to be there and chosen their subjects) or private business should be allowed to
Version 1 – August 06 69 run our schools and have a say in our children's education.
I do not agree with Academies. I strongly believe that we should not be allowing private sponsors to run out schools.
Staff Thirteen comments were received directly relating to staff issues. These included comments regarding how staff will transfer across to the Academies, and confirming the vital role teaching has in transforming secondary education.
GENERAL Although good quality modern buildings and up-to-date facilities and resources are important, so is high quality teaching. Do the proposals give security of employment and how will the change to Academy status address this? It is very important that experienced staff are retained until a school closes. There is a need to ensure that staff are given bonuses to stay, enhanced pensions and good redundancy payments. Pupils and teachers will gain from different learning and teaching techniques. Will there be any option or choices for members of staff closed to their retirement age and who do not wish to pursue the route of Academy or are just not prepared to accept the change?? What is going to happen to teaching staff already in the existing schools about to close? Are they to re-apply for jobs they already have? In an already difficult financial time these teachers will have no loyalty to the schools they are in at the moment. I am sure they will start to look elsewhere for positions, and who could blame them. What % of staff actually transfer? If the Council accepts Academies what proportion of staff would you use? If schools closing/merging will all teachers have to apply for new jobs? Are teachers going to be recruited by the sponsor or the governing body? Some schools teachers are horrendous. What will you do – will you just let them in? What about the head teachers? Would you only have one? Where are the teachers going to go when the school closes? You will find that you will lose the best teachers as they will be actively looking for alternative employment.
Transport Eight responses were received directly relating to traffic and transportation issues. Concerns included transport changes, increased travel costs, how the changes may force students to travel further, congestion issues and the need to provide education facilities locally.
GENERAL
Version 1 – August 06 70 This investment in school infrastructure represents an opportunity to improve on the existing facilities for dedicated school transport and public transport generally. This can demonstrate a commitment to subsequent school travel plans and the need to reduce the impact of the car based school run and staff journeys by actively encouraging sustainable modal choice. What about transport changes to meet needs and reduce fares? Why travel further when schools close? In the (BSF) brochure how children can access the new school site does not seem to consider transport which is sustainable. This needs to be an important factor when considering new schools, consultation which GMPTE and transport in regeneration would help achieve this. Traffic issues. 1500 pupils on schools buses; where will the bus route be? Now travelling will be a constant issue for the children. Children will need to travel longer distances need to pay costs of transport, best for children to stay put in present school in the local area. How will pupils walk to school if it is further away - all pupils should have access to a school within their locality?
Transition A number of comments were received relating to the transition of pupils from closing community schools to the proposed Academies. Particular concern related to minimising disruption to students during their exam periods and during the period of refurbishment in other schools.
GENERAL What about pupils taking exams during the transition period. Will they be disrupted and have to have different teachers? What will be done in the transitional phase when students are undertaking their GCSE’s? Pupils doing their GCSE’s in 2010 will their education suffer? Would like to know where her child will be going between 2010 - 2012 as Counthill is proposed to close in 2010 but Academy isn't due to open till 2012. No movement and transformation of school. Movement of children will disturb children's education during the process of building the new sites. During refurbishment will learning time be lost? There is an interim period between 2010 and 2012; what will happen in that time?
Proposed school closures and new Academies
Grange The consultation generated 21 comments regarding the proposals to close Grange School. Of these 25% supported the proposals including: "There is an urgent need for new schools, large enough to help the integration of the different communities, ideally religious interaction as well as racial.” However, nearly 30% of the comments opposed the closure of Grange. Issues cited
Version 1 – August 06 71 included loss of community and difficulty in travel. Other comments raised questions such as what is planned for the land and how will the proposals address underperformance.
POSITIVE There is an urgent need for new schools, large enough to help the integration of the different communities, ideally religious interaction as well as racial. Yes, because pupils will gain wider skills and qualifications needed from different ways of learning. The current school will not satisfy the hopes and demands of the future generations of pupils. As Grange school is in the middle of Oldham, I think that an Academy is good idea as there are lots of pupils attending that so making it large makes common sense.
GENERAL Grange is an excellent school according to ofsted, this is a school that others in the area should be studying at, and to close it would be to fail its pupils. No because then Grange will be moved to Royton and this will be difficult for us to drop our kids off at school and some people don't even have cars. We don't want Grange school transferring to Royton. If it has to be rebuilt it should be in Oldham Town Centre, so the pupils and their families don't have to relocate to Royton/Alex Park. Glodwick, Werneth, Coppice freehold areas are already degenerated. Chadderton is close on their heels since catchment areas changed. Bringing the Asian Academy to Royton would ruin Royton. Royton residents don't want it! We want Royton staying nice! Why not keep the name Grange and build it in the same location? Admission rules should seek to have an equal percentage of pupils from different backgrounds and all schools in the borough should stick to this rule. If there is a possibility of Our Lady’s school being put on the Grange site then I think Grange should stay and be refurbished. A huge number of students cannot create a sense of community like Grange currently has. It seems silly to bus large number of young people around for political rather than educational reasons.
QUESTIONS If the Bengali community want to buy the land that Grange is on could they do this? What is planned for the land once Grange has gone? Is the decision already made that the school will move to Royton? Is there a problem why the Academy cannot be built on this site? What is the piece of land for the all-weather pitch going to be used for? The way the new Academies are located are you suggesting that the ethnic groups are being forced out as in the town centre there will only be Blue Coat and Saddleworth taking facilities away from the community? Can you elaborate on the admissions criteria? Can you not use an alternative site? What facilities will we have?
Version 1 – August 06 72 The majority of pupils are Asian. What will be done to attract White British/Other pupils? How are we going to address underperformance?
Edutrust Four comments were received relating directly to the proposed Edutrust Academy, covering differing views of the sponsor and the proposed site.
GENERAL I have been very impressed with Edutrust as a body and with its proposals. Why do you feel the need for Edutrust to come in when Oldham’s LA, Oldham College, etc., has already produced good, mixed education? I don't have a problem with the school closing as it doesn't affect us. It’s the proposed site I have a problem with. If Grange transfers to Royton, I will be moving out of Royton. I take it you have split the site into two parts due to the fact that the road, West End Street, will have to remain in place whatever is built on this site. Would you be able to confirm this for me?
Kaskenmoor 16 comments were received directly affecting to Kaskenmoor. Of these three expressed support for the proposal and six concern. Four comments were made regarding Kaskenmoor's links with New Bridge School and how this will be affected if the Academy opens on a new site.
POSITIVE Definitely there is a need for transformation. Pupils of Kaskenmoor are missing out on many opportunities and from use of modern equipment e.g. music labs etc Yes but needs strong links established with Newbridge as first planned. I couldn’t see anything good about Kaskenmoor, in terms of appearance and academically students score ZERO!
GENERAL Kaskenmoor needs a new building, but it needs to stay where it is as it is best placed to cater for the needs of the local community. It already has a problem solving leadership team, so it does not need disrupting just help with the fabric of the building. By all means build a new school but why must it be an Academy? Build new premises on Kaskenmoor. Why move the school? It is perfect where it is. Why not just do it up? Strongly disagree. Kaskenmoor is an improving school, attaining good results with a year on year improvement and it understands the needs of the community that it serves. Lack of Local Authority and Government investment is the cause of building decay not pupils and staff. Social manipulation and a short term cost cutting exercise.
Version 1 – August 06 73
NEWBRIDGE SCHOOL What will happen to New Bridge School? Kaskenmoor site was chosen so both schools would gain from each others facilities. That link was so important and is why it was put there? You need to listen to parents and staff around children with disabilities and how to take this into consideration when designing schools, including interior fit out? We allowed Oldham Borough Council to build New Bridge School in order to facilitate closer cohesion between the two schools. Why is it being ignored when it has been a success? This school is linked to New Bridge. Part of the reason the site for Newbridge was identified. If Kaskenmoor relocates to an Academy how will this link remain?
QUESTIONS Alternative sites. Has the LA looked at the site across the road? Have you seriously considered the site? Why has it been discounted? Help students engage with other students.
South Chadderton The proposal to close South Chadderton received 21 comments, with three supporting and 18 against the proposals. The following is a typical comment: "The proposals contain some very positive features and if achieved suggest great opportunities. Here the opportunities have developed hugely over recent years with the school not yet at the top of its improvement curve. South Chadderton School has most closely matched the ethnic balance for Oldham as a whole across the range of secondary schools. Would the new Academy reflect this as closely?"
POSITIVE Yes, a new school and a new environment is fresh new start. The poor facilities in urgent need of complete renewal. This is the only way forward.
GENERAL How was it decided which schools had to be refurnished? Why is South Chadderton not being re-developed on this site? I am appalled that you are planning to close the school without consulting the parents and asking their opinion. Why can’t South Chadderton be modernized like North Chadderton. This is the only secondary school our community has and you will ruin the community. It is a very good feeder for Whitegate and Yew Tree. It is very well respected and we don't need new. To accommodate 1000+ pupils there are other sites in the catchment area, Broadway Business Park or current South Chadderton site. The local community of parents and children that I have spoken to do not want change of this scale. They want to keep their local school and keep the sense of community.
Version 1 – August 06 74 I have tried to provide a perspective which better reflects the feelings I have and what I detect among colleagues, many of whom may not respond due to their feeling of powerlessness. I am not entirely against Academies or indeed Oasis but feel there is a broader perspective to consider on behalf of a community that I value. I am so happy my youngest child will have left secondary school before the proposed changes. South Chadderton needs upgrading but not replacing with an Academy. Modernising, even rebuild, but don’t turn into an Academy. If the Academy is genuinely going to provide the best opportunities for the students of our community I would be happy to agree. I remain to be convinced. Little reference was made to our community by Oasis. We have a school which has carefully evaluated the needs of its students and designed structures and a curriculum to include all. This is why the school is successful and popular with parents. Far from being failing it is on the way to being thriving because we recognise the need to be constantly reflective and responsive to the changing needs of our students. It may be that the Academy would provide this but we would value reassurance in this rather than shallow attempts to filibuster through decisions that would appear to have already been made. There remains of course the issue of a lack of democratic accountability in what remain a publicly funded institution and the impact of the Christian ethos where secular preferences may have been made by staff or parents. Again, I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of the claims made by Oasis. No Government would realistically deny Oldham the money, given our needs and recent history, provided a viable alternative were on the table. In about 30 years or so all this money will be wasted. At present just do the schools up. Though you probably won’t take any notice of me and have already decided. That’s not fair, think of people and not just yourselves. The school is our community school and people of South Chadderton welcome sending their children to a local school. Children from Yew Tree and Whitegate End are losing options to attend schools of their choice and will have to travel long distances to school, for instances having to get 2 buses. Closing South Chadderton will not transform education in Oldham and building Academies will not solve the problem of the state comprehensive schools. Really Really disagree with the school being closed down, it's the only one in South Chadderton but there are two in North Chadderton. South Chadderton is well run, it's in a good area with plenty of open space and well situated for locals. Something needs to change. A simple look at the fabric of the buildings reveals this. I am keen to see developments but remain to be convinced that closure is the correct option. Given the resources to be pumped into the Academy, South Chadderton could provide everything the Academy proposes and more. The philosophies and vision from the head at South Chadderton would create a fantastic learning community and draw more from the wonderful current basis. Nothing in what Oasis has said or written suggests a level of educational philosophical competence to bear any comparison. It will definitely transform it but will it be for the better? Certainly not for the local community.
Version 1 – August 06 75 The proposals contain some very positive features and if achieved suggest great opportunities. There is however, very little in terms of meeting the student needs of our community that could not be achieved by South Chadderton School. Here the opportunities have developed hugely over recent years with the school not yet at the top of its improvement curve. South Chadderton School has most closely matched the ethnic balance for Oldham as a whole across the range of secondary schools. Would the new Academy reflect this as closely? South Chadderton School is situated in the local community for local children; it is also not too big and overwhelming for pupils. It is fine as it is! All on one site, not split.
Oasis Academy The Council received 26 comments directly relating to the proposed Oasis Academy. Several of these were positive, expressing the opinion that this offered a real opportunity for South Chadderton students and that Oasis can only improve education. The majority of the comments asked for more information about Oasis. About 25% expressed concern about either the sponsor or the site, several touching on distance from the existing site or reduction in pupil places.
POSITIVE Oasis is offering a real opportunity to improve standards for South Chadderton pupils. Yes students will find it easier to interact with people Things could not be any worse. Oasis can only improve things if the money is pooled to provide excellent facilities/teaching for all.
GENERAL The main issue is the safety of the children at the new site. Is it on a bus route? Will every child get a place at Oasis Academy? As previous South Chad and Kaskenmoor housed 1750 children but the Academy will only house 1206. If Kaskenmoor can choose to become an Academy, I don't see the necessity for this. Though Oasis is the right choice of sponsor. The new school will be further away and we don't think PFI is good for the pupils, the Council or the tax payers. The new school will be too large and further away. We don't want a new PFI Academy funded by the Oasis Academy. We want schools to be properly accountable. Completely disagree with proposed Brook Mill site; this is an already dense urban area. Judging by the way Steve Chalke from Oasis has avoided answering questions (I think because he doesn't know the answers) Oasis haven't thought things though. This is an exercise in social engineering forcing young people of different cultures together will not make them a community especially in such a large school. Transformation should be gradual and not so extreme as to merge two schools without proper thought. The Brook Mill site is unsuitable. If you take this school away we will have no community.
Version 1 – August 06 76 QUESTIONS Would pupils have to travel to South Chadderton for some lessons? Are you intending to still have the pupils on separate sites? What will be the impact of this? Will children join the Academy on two sites? Is there selection based on faith? Is it possible for Oasis to do their work in the existing two schools instead of merging the two schools? Concerned about the behaviour on the streets. Is there any way that parents can visit the Oasis Academy? How many youth workers are employed in the Oasis Academy? How many support staff, excluding youth workers, are working in Oasis? In this school there is a ratio of support staff? What is Oasis’s ratio of support staff? How explicit is the ethos of Christianity as there will be more Asian pupils? What would be the religious ethos in the new Academy? Will there be an opportunity to joint plan the curriculum? What sort of percentage is the Enfield Academy of Muslim pupils? What about children with learning difficulties? What provision will you provide if parents do not want to send their children to a religious Academy?
Breeze Hill The proposal to close Breeze Hill received 27 comments. Just over 50% expressed concern regarding the proposed closure, especially on the back of recent improvements: ("I think this is an excellent school which has been developed a lot in a very short space of time and changing everything for the students at this time is out of place.") Other concerns raised related to the existing school’s facilities, distance to the new school, ("Why fix something that isn't broken?")
GENERAL I want all our children to attend Breeze Hill. It is our local. My son attends Breezehill school. He is now in year 8, white British and is the only white in his class. He is very happy at this school. He has special learning needs and is funded. He has so much support from learning mentors and teachers, and his progress is excellent. I praise Breeze Hill school for all the support they give to young people. If this school closes and becomes an Academy how will teachers and learning mentors still give the support to all individuals and be as successful as they are now? My concerns on this are there are a lot of young people who do not integrate or work well in crowded places and already have difficulty in attending school. To expand and make it bigger is going to cause real worrying issues for young people who can’t work in this environment. The other issues are merging all these schools together in Waterhead, which again can cause concerns about them attending as they have to travel further and can cause hardship to families providing dinners and travel expenses. In my opinion Breeze Hill School has great facilities for young people.
Version 1 – August 06 77 Worried children will not be able to walk from Glodwick / Clarksfield. Worried about environment as children will go to school in cars, so more pollution. What are we recycling for? People from Glodwick send their children here. The Orb Mill is too far for them. Site, location, social mix and safety are big issues for our children. Breezehill is doing nicely slowly but surely Counthill needs some attention a new building up there might help drain the fields. Don't give up on a splendid rugby tradition I feel my children will have to travel further to their school which I as a parent would not be happy about. Too small, too far for our children. I think this is an excellent school which has been developed a lot in a very short space of time and changing everything for the students at this time is out of place. No it won't work. It is our local and our learning. I strongly agree because I live on one of the streets where the kids walk home and since living here I have had to have a new front door and things thrown at my windows. It is our local and is near to us. It would be hard for the new one. It is our understanding that we are expected to approve a sponsor. The sponsor cannot give us precise details as to their role, the amount of sponsorship money which is to be made available, the curriculum or the facilities they will provide to residents of Waterhead who are going to be fortunate enough to access their facilities as a result of their proximity to the Orb Mill site. Yet it has been made clear that we will have a £10 million mortgage. Who will be paying for it? It is very close to where we live. It is very easy for children to go and come on there own. Sending them so far I have to wonder all day have they reached there or what? My son has just left Breezehill and never had any problems there why fix something if it isn't broke
SPORTS FACILITIES What facilities would be available on site in order that a full P.E. curriculum could be satisfied? Is this sufficient if you need to retain Counthill's playing fields. This demonstrates the site is too small for the basic P.E. curriculum modules bearing in mind Counthill's history of rugby successes and Breeze Hill's excellent cricket teams. Will these two sports be accommodated on the new site? How can we reasonably be expected to approve the size of the site when it is clearly inadequate? What’s intended with Breeze Hill site - sports hall, pitches, swimming pool? The swimming pool will be taken away, taking away an opportunity for Muslim girls.
QUESTIONS What’s going to happen to the Breeze Hill site? How are you going to support deprived communities who may not speak English? The Bishop is rejecting the site. Do we not get a choice where the site will be? There are inconsistencies. Has the Bishop been offered the Breeze Hill site?
Version 1 – August 06 78 What effect will it have on the area if something else is built in the site? Will you able to tell us what will happen to it before a final decision is made? What is the distance measured in on the map. If it’s a bird’s eye view GMPTE don’t measure it that way they and we won’t qualify they measure it by the roads and routes. Can you provide information around why the Consterdine Street and Wellyhole Street sites weren’t chosen?
Counthill The Counthill proposals prompted some 30 comments and a series of questions. 19 comments expressed concern about the loss of a prime site with the potential for excellent sporting facilities and the affect on the local community. A number of comments urged re-use of exiting buildings or site.
GENERAL Counthill school should be kept on its existing site in the middle of the community. It has excellent sporting facilities and is away from busy main roads. Oldham Council should build on its strengths with a new build on site. The school requires support and the improvements made to date need recognition. The school's population is already large and to increase the number of pupils will have a huge effect on the ability of staff to address the pastoral needs of the pupils. I agree the buildings do require refurbishment to meet the needs of pupils. Agree, we need a more modern school at Counthill though not sure an Academy is the answer! The projections for pupils are not accurate. We caused falling rolls by announcing that the schools were closing. In general pupils do not want this. I do not know of anyone wishing this to happen. No, it won’t work mixing the two schools, my children go to Counthill and I strongly disagree. Counthill has served it community successfully for many years. It has had its difficulties recently, but had successfully emerged from special measures. Not at the loss of Counthill school. We live in the area and this is why you send your child to these schools not to go out of the area to another school Counthill has been around for years to integrate several schools may mean some children slip though the cracks due to higher ratios.
SITE / EXISTING BUILDINGS Counthill school is a prime site it would greatly benefit from being updated and having BSF money spent on it What is wrong with where Counthill is at the moment? The school has more than enough land to extend and surely it would be much better to plough money into refurbishing Counthill, which is a solid well built school and has many years of history. Why close a perfectly placed school with lots of land and build somewhere else? The current building is too good to demolish. If you must have bigger numbers extend.
Version 1 – August 06 79 Counthill site is a very large site and the only viable school for the North side of Oldham other than Saddleworth. This school should be restructured and extra services provided as lots of space is available to extend it.
TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORT I moved to this area in order to walk to work and school. You are now taking this away from us. The congestion from pupils travelling to school in going to worsen. I am going to have to arrange for my child to be taken and collected from school which is going to cost to me and my family.
SPORTS FACILITIES Counthill has all the land necessary for expansion particularly for sport. None of the other sites has these facilities except Our Lady's. Counthill has excellent provision for pupils with disabilities Counthill whilst an 'old School' has had many recent improvements to its sporting facilities, many of these used to good community use after school and at weekends. What (if the school closes) will happen to these? Will the site of the school become building land? Counthill Road and Haven Lane are almost at saturation point in regard to traffic. Counthill is potentially a good site especially for developing the sports facilities
QUESTION What will happen to the playing fields at Counthill? Will the proposed new Academy be the same as Failsworth and Radclyffe, and not several storeys high? Counthill has a strong sporting tradition. How will this be continued? Would children stay at Counthill until the new Academy opens? At the feasibility stage why can’t you opt to change the site? On the site there was a refused application for housing so how can it be safe to have a school there? What happens to the Counthill site when the school shuts? Will it be used for social usage? To what extent will the 6th form college be involved? Why do you/we want a new site?
Oldham College Academy More opinions about the proposed new Oldham College sponsored Academy were received compared to any other school or issue. While 20% expressed support, nearly 80% expressed concerns regarding the proposals. The main issues raised relate to the size of the site, traffic and transport and sport facilities. Other concerns involved racial integration, proximity to a local park, and the potential specialism.
POSITIVE
Version 1 – August 06 80 I agree as it will bring a range of people into the community. If the Academy takes place the pupils at Breeze Hill School will have different and wide opportunities to make their education a success. Yes pupils will take education more seriously and enjoy going to school too.
GENERAL Simply relocating the two schools and amalgamating is not the way forward. To improve the system new measures should be implemented at the existing sites. One difficult issue that no one will raise in public but is very much talked about is that of race. The two schools are generally one Asian and one not - this is creating issues and must be looked at. Correct integration of all is key to the future of Oldham - one way may have been for Breezehill to 'split' 3 ways - Counthill, Saddleworth and Bluecoat. The new Head at Counthill has made it clear, I believe that he will only be at the school for 2 years - by that time Counthill will be an Academy but will still operate from the current premises - will one head be appointed to run both sites. I would expect that when the Academy is in place it will recruit staff from both schools. This will have an impact on pupils as some staff will not want to teach in the Academy (Counthill staff have been very vocal in protesting). This could impact on teaching - especially for those at exam times in that difficult interim period. Waterhead site is totally unsuitable for an Academy. It's too near the country park and elderly residents; road access is a problem, lack of parking and general congestion. No, because I live in the area were it will be built. Counthill site is more than adequate. The Orb Mill site is totally unsuitable besides the size of this site, the location is horrendous. Did who ever chose this site once stand on Huddersfield Road between 8.20am and 9.00am on weekdays? The traffic is nearly always at a standstill. The main route to the Academy is very narrow at this point and a bottle neck the extra traffic is parents cars, schools buses to turn into the site would cause absolute grid lock and distress to many Oldham community to work, etc. Pupil safety would be an issue and the site is just not big enough. Forcing integration like this is a cause for concern! I disagree with the whole Academy project. the Orb mill site- too small and no playing fields. Bullying would be more prevalent. The proposed site in Waterhead is not suitable. It is small with not enough playing fields, traffic and potential drowning in reservoir (don’t scoff it happens). I don't want my 11 year old travelling across the borough. What if she shines at a subject that Waterhead Academy doesn’t specialise in? If Counthill school was to close we would move before we would put them in an Academy (Counthill) An Academy sponsored by Oldham College brings nothing that they couldn't provide anyway. This Academy is not needed. ( I am also worried about the merging of Counthill and Breezehill; two such different communities will take many years to adopt. I fear racially motivated disorder in the vicinity of the school.
Version 1 – August 06 81 The plan to put two schools one as Orb Mill will have a devastating effect on my children's education. The site is on a very busy main road with traffic danger noise and pollution and no sport facilities. I firmly believe that the loss to the communities will be greater than any improvement that is being sough. Each community has specific needs that will be very difficult to be addressed though the closure of their schools. Joining Breezehill and Counthill is a recipe for disaster. Not correct location - busy. To far to take my children - not afford travel cost. Due to the site of the new Academy, half the Asian pupils will need another school.
SIZE Concerned that the Orb Mill is too small. Site at Waterhead is not big enough, including the provision for good quality sports facilities. We are told that the Academy will also be used by wider community, but it's difficult to see how such a small site can provide enough car parking for such use, including busy surrounding streets with very little spare capacity. Putting schools such as Counthill/Breezehill on the Orb Mill site is an absolute disgrace. Far too small a site for the amount of pupils, staff and necessary vehicles. There are too many children in TWO schools to put into one. With the map size shown; how do you expect to get children in a site that’s half the size? Oldham College Academy will be too big to create the sense of educational community needed to promote learning. The number of pupils expected to start at the new Academy is a great concern. The site is also a concern young people need space and 1500 pupils will require more space than the proposed site offers. I cannot see the sense in closing the school and merging with an equally large school on a smaller site. I don't see how this would raise standards for either school? The new site is much too small for a big secondary school. The College should stick to tertiary education. My concern is the site for this Academy. It would have to be more than 4 to 5 levels to support the amount of children and the amount of class rooms needed. This site would not make great schooling (Counthill). Don't think Academy is the best solution but willing to consider, however site of new Academy will be very small.
TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORT Access to the site will be from Huddersfield Road; a major trunk road between Oldham town centre and Saddleworth and West Yorkshire. Some of the school traffic will turn right across the stream of traffic on this already busy road. This will also cause problems in Waterhead village. The proximity of the A62 also worries me with so many young people attempting to cross the road.
Version 1 – August 06 82 On a busy main road where the chances of serious accidents will be very likely and therefore the blame can be laid on the Council if the proposal goes ahead and there are accidents when they are aware of the problems. The extra amount of traffic and people in the area will cause severe congestion on what is a busy main road and there will be huge problems for local residents but I don't think you care. How do you propose to deal with the large increase in traffic at rush hour on Huddersfield Road when the new Academy at Waterhead is operational? This road is heavily congested at rush hour at present; surely the extra journeys to and from Waterhead will lead to gridlock for the residents. My area of interest is the totally unsuitable Orb Mill site in Waterhead and you can see by the protests already going on by residents that I am not the only one to object. There will be much more traffic around that site causing even more congestion than at present at peak times. Many more people using the pedestrian crossing will add to it and cause problems with road safety. There is little car parking available even now and the result of more traffic in the area doesn't bear thinking about! So many young people wandering around that area can be intimidating for older people and there are many around Waterhead. We need to consider the issue with congestion especially as Tesco's will be in close distance to the proposed Academy. We need to think of its customer’s safety. Travelling will be an issue. Can you guarantee that there will be yellow buses? The journey from Breeze hill area to the new site is not an easy one, especially on public transport. The travel arrangements will be detrimental to the Asian pupils who are the bulk of the Breeze hill intake. You cannot provide details of the transport infrastructure which would be essential if we were to proceed with this site and while there is a real fear that the transport may never be available, we are expected to approve this new site?
SPORT FACILITIES No playing fields on site will cause a huge increase in what is already a big problem of truancy and lateness for lessons which will therefore spoil even more the education of pupils and disruption of lessons. It is quite clear that the facilities provided at Counthill and Breeze Hill schools cannot be accommodated on the Orb Mill site. We are told that sports facilities at Counthill will continue to be used for the new Academy. Surely this is a step backwards. Valuable teaching time will be lost in transferring pupils and staff from one site to another. The timetable also indicates that the Academy at Waterhead is expected to be in operation by 2012. This seems a very ambitious target considering the size of the task. We have already heard of Academies being late in delivery in other parts of the country. As a PE teacher the site also concerns me with regards to sport facilities. I would be interested to know what the plans are for sport at the Academy. 2010 is two academic years off and no work seems to be underway with the pupils who are proposed to be put together on the site in 2012. What about sports facilities? There is not enough room at Orb Mill site.
Version 1 – August 06 83
COMMUNITY IMPACT I am also concerned about the impact of a community school for 1500 pupils in an area where there have not a school for many years. Many residents are retired and enjoy the quiet life.
MEDLOCK VALLEY There is also lots of concern about the possible negative impact on Medlock Valley Country Park. The site is also next to an excellent nature reserve, this will be totally spoilt by groups of children form the school (believe me I know what they are like).
SPECIALISM The Academy that will replace Counthill will specialise in English and vocational studies. My child is exceptional at maths. Does she have to be content with a NVQ in travel and tourism! The new Academy seems to be going down a route of vocational qualifications. I have no issue with that but as a parent of two children very capable of getting A grade GCSE results and progressing to A levels/university is this Academy going to be able to give them a high academic route? I cannot see how a specialist English with Humanities college will provide a good quality education to children whose natural gifts are for sciences, sport or language.
QUESTIONS Breeze Hill and Counthill has a reduction in number from 2300 to 1500 places. Where are the other 800 going to go? Please confirm what will happen between school closing and Academy opening? Will Counthill and Breeze Hill students remain at their own sites to complete their studies? Please could you confirm that pupils from Counthill School will remain at the Counthill site for Sept 10 to Sept 12 for all their studying and sport, and not be expected to travel to Breeze Hill School? Could we not have two smaller Academies? How will two low achieving schools change for the better? What are they going to do to raise attainment? Is it just Oldham College that is funding the Academy? What facilities will it have? It looks as though we will have fewer facilities. Can you elaborate on the off-site facilities? How will the management work? What is the time limit on the sites? What is a new Oldham College Academy exactly? How and why is it better? Appears to best place to have a school, but will it have to be high rise to fit all the sports facilities on site?
Hathershaw Version 1 – August 06 84 Only a small number of comments were received relating directly to the proposal to expand Hathershaw by one form of entry (6 comments), the majority of which where supportive. One negative comment concerned the size of the school possibly affecting student performance and one relating to how a school appearance doesn't necessarily mean student standards will improve.
GENERAL The students will feel they can learn in a new up to date comfortable environment. Needed! I agree with the proposal to expand Hathershaw but do not consider that will help transform education in Oldham. This is a chance for more students from the local areas who can't find transport to other schools to be able to go to Hathershaw? Pupils in smaller schools achieve more. It will definitely improve the appearance of a school but it doesn’t necessarily follow that student standards will improve.
Other The Council received a range of other questions many of which are referenced at www.oldham.go.uk/bsf. They include CCTV provision, flood protection, agency interaction and involvement of local businesses and issues relating to school uniform.
QUESTIONS Will there be CCTV in all new schools. If so, it makes you paranoid? Failsworth flooded. Will we be spending a lot of money and sec schools flooded? How will we stop damage and graffiti from occurring? How will we ensure behaviour change just because we have a new school? What about transgender, LGBT issues. Unisex toilet s for instance and additional inclusive support? Young people need to be involved in planning process early? Were young people consulted before proposals on Academies were decided? Why are we not consulted on where the site will go? Will new developments increase interaction between other agencies? I don’t see the logic of putting two schools together. Why is this? If there is no 6 th form provision will there be places at the Oldham College and Sixth Form? Is it a “done deal”? Can we take it furt her to express our view that we are not happy with the site that has been proposed? Will doctors be safe on a school site? Strangers coming onto the site. Your buildings will be outdated in 20 years. Will you update them then? How do you nurture essential skills in students? Will we get help with the cost of uniforms? What about uniform? Will the pupils have a chance to choose from a variety of choices?
Version 1 – August 06 85 Will there be pastoral support? BSF video depicts new schools will be similar to Radclyffe and Failsworth. I would like guarantee that this will be the case and that the proposed new buildings will not be several storey brick builds. Are you sure population projections are accurate? Local business must be involved in the projects to deliver BSF in Oldham. I agree with D-Tec MD that local businesses particularly those with social objectives could be included more in the BSF process with clear advantages to both sides. Why are C of E schools better than LA controlled schools? How do primary schools fit into all this? Is the LA using the tables of performance to get more money? Why is there no investment in Islamic schools? How interdependent is one thing upon another in the BSF project?
Version 1 – August 06 86