Dr Sonia Sharp, Executive Director CYPS, C/O Joel Hardwick, Floor 6, Derwent House, 150 Arundel Gate, Sheffield S1 2JY

To: Dr Sonia Sharp, Executive Director CYPS, c/o Joel Hardwick, Floor 6, Derwent House, 150 Arundel Gate, Sheffield S1 2JY. From: Professor John Coldron, Chair of Governors, Abbeydale Grange School Date: 22nd January 2010 Dear Sonia Herewith are the objections of the Governors of Abbeydale Grange to the proposal to discontinue the school. As you will see we believe that this is the wrong decision. We have responded in the spirit with which we have engaged with the LA throughout, that is on the assumption that all concerned are conscientiously attempting to determine the way forward that is in the best interests of the young people currently at the school and for all students and their parents in Sheffield. Neither the governors nor the council can demonstrate beyond doubt whether future students will be better off as a result of their differing recommendations. In the end that is a judgement call and rightly the responsibility of the elected members following advice from their officers. We believe that the evidence and arguments show that the cabinet's judgement is ultimately speculative and the promised results highly questionable, while what is certain is the harm that is being done, and will be done, to the welfare and education of the current students despite the efforts to mitigate this. This is a cost the cabinet judge to be worth paying for the benefit of future students. Our argument is that the council do not have to ask students and parents to pay this cost, nor gamble on uncertain gains. They need the places and the alternative of supporting the evident improvements in attainment and guiding the school to transform is the better bet. The cabinet still have an opportunity to reverse this decision. It would be honourable and responsible to do so. If they do they can rely on the staff and governors of Abbeydale Grange to work wholeheartedly with them in the interests of all. Yours sincerely Professor John Coldron Chair of Governors and Parent Governor Abbeydale Grange School 1 Objection to the Statutory otice published on 14 th December 2010 to discontinue Abbeydale Grange Foundation School From the Governors of Abbeydale Grange School 21 st January 2010 The governors object to the proposal to discontinue Abbeydale Grange School. This submission is in three parts. The first summarises the main points of our objections. The second provides detailed and evidenced commentary referenced to the sections of the Statutory Proposal. The final section has appended documents referred to in the text. They are: 1. ote on caution needed on statistics from John Coldron to Advisory Group 2. Social statistician's report. 3. Scatter diagram showing AGS as an outlier in terms of Stability and EAL 4. Extract re Co-operative Trust from Governors response to consultation 5. Primary School Places: Leaflet to primary schools in the South West of Sheffield warning of increased pressure on school places 6. Health Authority's live birth data Summary: Point One: The arguments that standards will improve by transferring the students to other schools are highly speculative but the harm to the education and welfare of current students is certain. Only if no other course of action was available and there was no sign of improvement at Abbeydale Grange should closure have been proposed. • Despite the considerable steps taken by the LA to mitigate the potential harm to current AGS students, the chances that the welfare of a significant proportion of the young people will suffer both educationally and in other ways is very high. Consequently the claim that the attainment of current students will be enhanced is highly questionable. • The LA’s claim that future students who would have come to AGS will attain better at other schools is based on incomplete and poorly interpreted data and in the view of an independent statistical expert extremely untrustworthy.(see appended report from Sean Demack). • Despite the difficult circumstances, the evidence shows clearly that the standards in the school are improving rapidly such that the National Challenge floor target 2 will be reached and might even be exceeded by July 2010. In addition recent OFSTED monitoring reports judge that the school is making satisfactory progress. • If closure is unlikely to benefit either current or future students and do little to enhance overall attainment across Sheffield and is in the face of evidence that the school can reach acceptable attainment standards, then only if no other course of action is available should closure have been proposed. Other options, specifically the governors’ proposal for a Co-operative Trust and the option of a National Challenge Trust, are available but have been improperly rejected. Point Two: The LA has illegitimately privileged some parents’ preferences over others and, in addition, the proposal to close will reduce choice. • The guidance for decision makers is clear that whatever the LA does should help to create a ‘system shaped by parents’. It is the case that a significant proportion of parents at Abbeydale (38% of the intake ) make Abbeydale Grange their first choice each year and those (often new arrivals) that are later directed there are very happy and the majority have stated unequivocally that they choose to stay. • In the setting of their original objectives, in the conduct of the consultation and in the response to that consultation the LA have demonstrated that preferences expressed by parents from the designated catchment area are more important than those expressed by parents outside that area. The governors consider this to be an illegitimate condition imposed by the LA. Catchment areas should only be considered in cases of over-subscription. They only become operative (have legal status as part of a school's admission arrangements) when the school is oversubscribed. It is not the LA’s job to decide which parents should shape the system. • Closing the school would reduce choice considerably by denying these parents the choice they currently have and tha,t in the consultation, they demonstrated they wanted to retain. In the Statutory Proposal the LA explicitly state that the children from outside the catchment (designated area as an over-subscription criterion) who take up places at AGS are from some of the more deprived areas of Sheffield. Aspiring parents from these areas are opting away from their local school. Closure would mean this option was removed from poorer parents in direct opposition to the stated aims of the School Admissions Code and in contravention of the duty not to discriminate either directly or indirectly. Schools do not exist only to serve the community living immediately near the school. • The decision to close removes one of only two Foundation secondary schools in Sheffield and thereby reduces diversity of providers in contravention of the statutory requirement to increase choice and diversity in the area. Point Three: The likely increased segregation and negative effect on standards of attainment in Sheffield schools add strength to the argument that closure should be a last resort. 3 • The effective restriction of parents’ choice to those schools within their residential areas together with the fact that Sheffield is residentially highly socially differentiated (see the Two Cities Report from Sheffield University and the measure of segregation in Sheffield and other cities by Rebecca Allen and Anna Vignoles) will increase the segregation of the schools in Sheffield. There is considerable evidence from the OECD (PISA; Brooks 2008) and academic reports within the UK that such segregation contributes significantly to lower attainment. The increased segregation is likely therefore negatively to affect standards in Sheffield schools. We also believe that it may contravene the duty to promote equity. Point Four: The LA have not adequately considered or consulted on all alternatives to closure. • Given the potential harm of closure to young people, the questionable grounds for closure, the evidence of sustainable improvement, the effective reductions in choice and diversity, and the evident willingness of the governors to find transformative ways forward the LA should have seriously considered all alternatives. They demonstrably did not do so. They were the ones in the driving seat once closure was proposed and the school was put into special measures. But at no point did they offer for discussion a National Challenge Trust which chimes with the governors’ proposal of a transformative Co-operative Trust. The time that they gave for consideration by potential partners for a hard federation was not adequate and the timing of the invitation to consider it (close to the end of the summer term) was such as to be bound to lead to hasty and unconsidered decisions. • The LA should have initiated a proper consultation on the National Challenge Trust option in a 'top down' move. At a later stage they should have responded to the Governors proposal with a fresh consultation in line with para 1.3 in the Closure Guidance where it states Where, in the course of consultation, a new option emerges which the proposers wish to consider, it will probably be appropriate to consult afresh on this option before proceeding to publish proposals. Instead the LA officers in their report to Cabinet dismissed the proposal because it was not 'top down', and would improve things but too slowly. • Given the arguments and evidence above, it is in the best interests of the students that the LA withdraw its proposal to close and begin serious discussions to take forward the work of the Governors to establish a National Challenge Trust using the Co-operative model. Point Five: In the event of a final decision to close the school the timetable for closure is too fast. 4 • The proposed speed of closure is exacerbating the difficulties for parents, students and receiving schools.

Load more