HI All

 

ARA Meeting Re Hesketh Fletcher,

 

20 People turned up to discus that very subject.

 

There is another meeting with Andy Burham Friday 6pm at the cricket club. (Sorry I am working)

 

There was a great deal of discussion in fact for 2 hours.(7pm -9pm)

 

The next meet of the ARA will be 29th July 2009 Tuesday at (Hesketh Manor) 7pm upon we will find a representation to go to

Wigan on the 30th to be present at the meeting in the Town Hall 3pm.

 

Then at the Public meeting on the 4th August 2009 Tuesday at Jubilee Hall St Richards Club at 7.30pm we will report all that has taken place.

I would ask as many people to attend this event.

 

So at least we can report to the people of Atherton. 

Out of 22000 we should fill jubilee hall.

 

I hope that all that is taking place that we will have had our say.

 

 

Just for all we had the support of  Norman Bradbury & Bob Splaine at the meeting on Tuesday night.

 

 

Building Schools for the Future

Consultation Response

 

Question 1: Should we use BSF to transform schools in the way described?

 

Yes, we should use BSF funds to transform our schools and few could quarrel with the aims as set out in the consultation document.  Unfortunately the plans do not match the aspirations.  The aims have not been used as a yardstick to test the detail of the plans.  The cost of the transformation in terms of the disruption to the education of pupils, the impact on the communities affected and the environment of the borough (particularly in terms of travel and transport congestion) is way too high.

 

For example, Atherton has had a secondary school at the “heart of its community’” for a hundred years or so.  This has meant that the majority of the population has shared a common experience.  Is there a better way to ensure ‘community cohesion’?  Dispersing that majority to schools outside the township will be detrimental to a tight knit community. Over the last thirty years the adults have dispersed to find work elsewhere, following the decline of the major industries in the town. If the High School is closed and a centre is established that serves children from across the whole of the east of the borough, what will be left to hold the community together?  Atherton will become just another dormitory town lacking the heart that is currently its strength.

 

Through the consultation it is necessary to heed the concerns of the people of the town who have demonstrated their opposition to the plans in a public protest.

 

Question 2:  Does our vision describe what we want to achieve?

 

Yes in terms of today’s preoccupations.  It cannot, however be described as  ‘visionary’.  It pays scant attention to what education in thirty years will look like.  For example, do those in charge of education in the future really think that “the latest technology – for example interactive white boards and computers” ( p.2), already widely used in most schools, describes in any way the technology likely to be in use even ten years from now?  The vision is demonstrably limited in relation to technology and is equally limited in considering what is likely to be required of education in the future.

 

Similarly, there is some mention of the need to limit travel in the interests of the environment, yet this concern is ignored in the plans for children in Atherton.

 

Would it not be preferable to invest in what already serves the communities,  replacing or upgrading the buildings rather than destroying schools that serve their communities?

 

Question 3:  Should schools work together to turn our vision into reality?

 

Yes but if schools are to work together why is one school Fred Longworth High School missed out of the Phase 1 plans and any developments for that school deferred to phase 2?  Surely all schools affected by planned changes in an area need to move together, especially since Fred Longworth is the closest school to Hesketh Fletcher, the school that the plan proposes should be closed?  Failure to include plans for Fred Longworth has limited the choice for existing pupils at Hesketh Fletcher and assumed that an 11-16 school of 1500 in Tyldesley is a good thing.

 

Question 4:  Have we considered all the issues that you feel need to be addressed as part of the re-organization?  If not please explain what you think we have missed out.

 

Many of the issues have been identified but have not been fully addressed in the plans.  It would appear that the plans have not been scrutinized sufficiently to show up the inconsistencies that are present in the detail of the proposals.  They seem to smack more of expediency than planning.  Clearly there is a limit to available funding, but these plans do not describe the future convincingly, do not make best use of what is currently available and sell the community of some 28,000 people in Atherton short.  The cost to the community of Atherton through the loss of its High School is too great.

 

One very important issue not addressed is the optimum size for 11-16 schools.  When Fred Longworth had 1350 on role it was more difficult to manage. I500 is too many.  Three schools, each of about a thousand, would be much better than the current proposal. Examination of the school numbers, in relation to plans for the west of the borough, suggests that schools of around 750 are acceptable.  If that is the case in the west then why is this not true for the east?

 

Question 6:  Do you agree that local children should have priority for a place at a local school?

 

For secondary school pupils of Atherton township this question is a vexed one, since they will not have a “local secondary school” but will be on the periphery of the all the others.  If, for example, they are given preference for places at Fred Longworth, as the nearest school, what will then happen to children in Mosley Common? This has been a difficult issue for many years and the plans do not address it.

.

There does not appear to be much room for an increase in numbers in the area.  Considering the amount of building in and around Atherton and the need to add classrooms to some local primaries, this would seem to be an important consideration. 

 

Question 7:  Do you think admission arrangements would be easier to understand if each denominational school had a defined catchment area?

 

This is not the biggest problem that the plans for the future need to consider particularly in the Atherton area.  The plans will result in the closure of the only CE secondary school in the east of the borough.

 

Question 8:  What are your views on our proposal to establish two 14-19 Centres to deliver Diplomas and post-16 courses?

 

There are two surprising features of these proposals.  The first is the absence of any reference to the local colleges.  What will their role be in the education of 14-16 year olds in the east of the borough?  This is not at all clear.  The professional experience of teaching this age group and delivering vocational courses lies in the tertiary sector but the colleges do not seem to figure in these plans.

 

There has been considerable investment in Leigh’s new 6^th form centre but this is not considered. 

 

The second surprising feature is the way the plans seem to ignore the “home grown” developments of skill centres that stemmed from the need to address the lack of appropriate vocational education for some young people.  These centres, deliberately located in industrial premises, have been largely ignored.  Would it not have been better to learn from the experiences of setting up these centres and successfully seeking employer support?  It is interesting that the idea of a company limited by guarantee to run the proposed centres has been borrowed from these developments while in other respects they have been ignored.

 

Currently there is so little flesh on the bones of the proposals for the skills centres that it is difficult to have much opinion of this part of the plan.  The problem is that in order to establish the centres two schools have to be closed –and for a pipe dream?   

 

Question 9:  What do you think about the idea of the two area based trusts?

 

At the time of writing this idea seems to have been abandoned for lack of support.

 

Question 10:  What are your views on community schools becoming foundation School?

 

As for Question 9., this idea too seems to have found little support. Any school with inherent problems in their building, such as acres of flat roofs, would be mad to support this notion.

 

Of course, if all schools became foundation schools, it would play havoc with the LA’s admissions procedures.

 

 

Question 11:  Overall do you think our proposals will help to develop secondary education to meet the needs and challenges of the 21^st Century?

 

NO.  For all the reasons detailed in the answers to the questions above these plans fail to convince, in spite of the glossy publication.  They are expedient rather than visionary. They fail to meet the needs and challenges of the future and if implemented will be very costly for the communities that the borough is supposed to serve.  Considering the strong public opposition to the proposals pushing through this plan could be politically disastrous, particularly at a time when the government is urging politicians to connect with the people.

 

 

Other Questions.

 

1. Do you think that the document clearly explains why we are proposing to discontinue Hesketh Fletcher CE and enlarge Westleigh High school?  Please tell us what your concerns are.

 

The major reasons stated suggest that there is little support for a secondary school in Atherton since numbers of first choice preferences are low and GCSE results disappointing.  The numbers are low for two reasons.  The threat of closure was made public long before the choice of Secondary school was made.  Consequently parents chose a school where the education of their child would not be interrupted.  Secondly local parents naturally put Fred Longworth as first choice hoping to secure a place at a more successful school falling back on Westleigh when the option of Fred Longworth was denied.

 

Scrutiny of the examination data for Hesketh Fletcher, over the last five years, reveals interesting information.  There is little consistency year on year in overall success as measured by 5 GCSEs A-A*,  32% in 2005, 50% in 2007. There seems to have been some improvement.   One consistent feature is the poor performance in Maths and English.  The LA must have identified this problem so surely it should have been tackled.  Why was Manchester Challenge only involved when the school was chosen for closure?  It would appear that Westleigh High School received funding at an earlier stage.

 

It would also appear that Hesketh Fletcher had a considerably lower budget than other local secondary schools.  It was late receiving specialist status.  Unlike all the other local schools it has not received any Excellence Cluster funding or support.  There must have been difficulty in finding the necessary resources to bring about the required step change while other schools forged ahead.   External advisory support is only partially effective.  Additional staff based in the school, albeit requiring large sums of additional school funding, is more valuable in raising levels of pupil attainment.  It would therefore seem more sensible to have addressed these problems rather than close the school.

 

2. Do you support the proposal to discontinue Hesketh Fletcher and offer alternative places at Bedford, Westleigh and Fred Longworth High Schools?

 

 NO.  There are no places at Fred Longworth High School and never were. It was misleading to include this possibility in the plan.  Travel considerations for young pupils have been given little attention. 

_____________

 

 

I have deliberately not filled in the questionnaire format provided in the document since it seems to have been designed to generate a positive result from any analysis of the responses.  This methodology is typical of the way the consultation has been conducted.

 

One puzzle remains – how can a ‘drop-in session’ require an appointment?

 

One glaring omission from the questions has been any attempt to ask for an evaluation of the consultation process, which in many ways has been seriously flawed.  The local people do not trust the Local Authority, do not trust their local councillor who has failed to support them and feel that this is just another example of being dictated to.

 

 

Please Print off as many as you want an ask people to sign please hand in say 29th July 2009.

Please find the doc enclosed.

 

 

 

Name	Address	Sign