Debenham High School A Church of England High Performing Specialist Academy 26th February 2018 Mr. C. Noble & Members of the Cabinet Suffolk County Council Endeavour House 8 Russell Road IPSWICH IP1 2BX Dear Cabinet Member, REFERENCE: PROPOSED CHANGES TO MAINSTREAM SCHOOL TRANSPORT I write as Headteacher of Debenham High School but also as someone who has given over 25 years of service in the education of young people in Suffolk. I have worked in Stowmarket, Lowestoft, Bury St Edmunds and now Debenham since my arrival in Suffolk in 1993 as a newly qualified teacher. I write with grave concern over the proposed changes to transport policy as outlined in the public consultation document of 12 December 2017. The potential impact to Debenham High School would be a net loss of 65 students (based on current transport arrangements), a significant number, estimated at 10% of our current student population, yet my concerns and considerations for cabinet go beyond the impact that might be seen by Debenham High School or others at an individual institution level. The proposal does not promote social equality At present schools work closely with neighbouring, catchment feeder schools and whilst it is recognised that not all schools have a traditional catchment area, this is the case for the majority of High Schools. This policy will mean the end of catchment areas as their role will be meaningless. There are two possible outcomes that are possible from this: 1. High Schools could chose to maintain a catchment area principle in their admissions policy. They would continue to work closely with schools in their catchment area, supporting development across phases and establishing activities and shared opportunities (for staff and students) that ensure smooth transition and effective continuity of learning. This, you might think, would be commendable and likely to result in continued improvement across all stages of education in Suffolk. However, this policy will mean that students who are part of this work, will find that whilst they gain a place at their catchment secondary school for transition, that they do not have free transport to get there. The social isolation that a child might feel, having had interactions from High School, that they might not be able to then attend that school in the future. Gracechurch Street, Debenham, Suffolk IP14 6BL Tel 01728 860213 Fax 01728 860998 Email [email protected] Website www.debenhamhigh.co.uk Headteacher: Miss J Upton BSc Senior Leadership Team: Mr S Martin, Miss S McBurney, Mrs L Ramsay, Mrs T Willmott Chairman of the Academy Trust: Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich Chairman of Governors: Mr David Carruthers Debenham High School is a company limited by guarantee and registered in England and Wales with company No. 07467445 Unintended Consequence: Those that cannot afford to find another means of transport will attend another school and hence transition work undertaken will have been worthless and the child will feel isolated from their peers on transition 2. It is possible that as a result of the change in transport policy that High Schools chose to make a change to their admissions policy. Academies are not bound by keeping a catchment area first principle in their admissions policy. High Schools might chose to work with only some chosen feeder primary schools, hence the possibility of isolating some schools and leaving some geographical areas, with no school in which their child would be likely to gain a place. Unintended Consequence: The potential manipulation and loss of catchment areas could mean that social equality and access to High School places is not fair or equitable for some children. The proposal will have a negative impact on educational standards in Suffolk It is fact that in a time of significant organisational change that standards are hard to maintain. The proposed changes will have an impact on the staffing (increasing or decreasing) of 21 of the 39 High Schools. Changes in staffing (either joining or leaving) will mean a period of instability and hence poorer results in the schools affected. In those schools who will lose staff, redundancy changes will likely see schools lose experienced staff, hence weakening teams. In those schools who will gain staff, building new teams, adapting to bigger cohorts takes time to establish good practice. At a time when significant public funds have been spent on the improvement of educational standards in Suffolk, through the Raising the Bar agenda, this proposal will set back any improvements made and undermines the considerable effort and resource which has been spent on this agenda. The policy proposal, despite numerous calls for it, has failed to provide any analysis of the potential educational impact of this change. It is being presented on a financial basis alone, with no considerations for the consequences of the change. Unintended Consequence: In both situations, standards will fall for some time (generally acknowledged to be at least a period of five years to adapt to such change). Can Suffolk afford for 54% of its secondary schools to dip in standards? The evidence is clear, that whether a school grows or shrinks, standards will fall. Suffolk schools are still dealing with the impact of SOR changes SOR has had and is still having a significant impact on educational standards in Suffolk, as a result of the great disruption caused. SOR did however create new and improved relationships between primary and secondary schools. Much time, expertise and money has been invested in these relationships which aid transition for all, but most especially for vulnerable students. Unintended consequences: One implication of this policy change is established (in SOR areas possibly new relationships) relationships become difficult to maintain as an impact of the change in policy losing continuity. The proposal is scheduled at a time of significant financial change and challenge for schools The new funding formula is due to be implemented in the next two to three years. This change comes at a time of increased pension and national insurance contributions for all schools. This results to a net decrease in funding for schools of 5%. There are no proposals from the DfE that schools will receive money to address these increased outgoings. In fact we are constantly reminded that we will have to “cut our cloth” accordingly. Unintended Consequence: Schools who will be struggling with changes in funding and stretched budgets already will face further disruptive change, which will distract schools from the focus on teaching and learning and result in a drop in standards. The proposal creates rural discrimination Policies that are implemented such as this in more urban areas have a very different consequence. In an urban environment, parental choice and transport is much easier facilitated when more than one school is within walking distance. The proposal that this policy should use rights of way as part of the nearest school calculation is just one element of how the proposal has not taken into account of the needs of a rural environment. Unintended Consequence: Families who live in a rural area, with less access to public transport and other transport routes will be left with no choice, whereas in more urban settings this policy would not create the same rural discrimination. The proposal will result in the diversion of the use of public money for the education of young people, for the transport of them to schools It has been suggested that schools could use their own income to create their own transport arrangements for those who might be affected by the loss of student numbers. This will be money that is intended for students’ education once at school, not in order to get them there. Unintended Consequence: This goes against the Nolan Principles expected of those in public office and will result in the misuse of public money intended for the purpose of education of young people. Schools in the East of England face a teacher recruitment crisis The government has recognised the dire and immediate recruitment crisis facing the teaching profession. In January 2018 the public accounts committee admonished the education department (DfE) for not foreseeing the shortage of teachers and taking action to avoid it. The stark statistics are: As of 18 December 2017, 12,820 people had applied for teacher training. At the same point in the previous recruitment cycle, 19 December 2016, 19,330 people had made applications. The figures equate to a drop of 6,510 (33 per cent) The number of teachers leaving the profession for non-retirement reasons increased from 22,260, or 6%, in 2011 to 34,910, or 8.1%, in 2016. At least 25% of teachers leave the profession within five years of qualification, take this to ten years and the percentage is closer to 50% The issue in the East of England is the bleakest in the whole country – o Mathematics: Nationally 58% of schools report difficulties recruiting; East of England 65% o Science: 45% of schools report difficulties recruiting; East of England 56% o English: Nationally 40% of schools report difficulties recruiting; East of England 46% o IT/Computer Science: Nationally 21% of schools report difficulties recruiting; East of England 30% o MFL: Nationally 16% of schools report difficulties recruiting; East of England 46% o Design and Technology: Nationally 13% of schools report difficulties recruiting; East of England 23% Unintended Consequence: Further destabilisation and change in Suffolk will only discourage more teachers from joining or remaining in the profession. It is not true to say that all those that leave one school will join another. This move will likely be the trigger for many to leave the profession for good. Do we really need to compound the already stark recruitment crisis? The proposal will cost public funds more than it will save in the redundancy and recruitment for school The significant impact that this will have on some schools will incur a cost far greater than the savings that it proposes.