Lickhill Primary
I've not said anything about the proposed closure of Lickhill Primary as I've no emotional or personal involvement; yeah yeah I'm completely self-centred, but at least I acknowledge it. Anyhoo my interest was peaked by Tav's commenting on trying to get information out of the WHub and I ended up reading the minutes of the meeting. Actually I ended up reading them several times because the logic didn't make sense until I read the consultancy documents.
Here's the rough deal:
The suggestion is that instead of having 2 schools each taking up to 30 pupils in each year group there would be 1 school admitting up to 60 pupils in a year group described as 2 FE.Sounds logical and cost-effective. The public consultation went out the beginning of 2007 asking for a simple yes or no to:
Having read the consultation document you will know that the Local Authority is suggesting amalgamating the new Lickhill and Stourport Primary Schools to form a new 2 FE primary school on the current Lickhill Middle School site.Now it's important to note that it has always been the intention of moving the Stourport Primary to the Lickhill Middle site, but that it was going to be rebuilt as a 1FE school. So if you're building anyway might as well suggest making it a 2FE and close the smaller Lickhill school, again logical.
On this consultation they only received 88 responses with 54 Nays and 29 yays. It's not many so on to the second consultancy phase. Here's the yes/no question:
Having read through this consultation document you will know that the Local Authority is proposing to expand Stourport Primary School and close Lickhill Primary School to form a new 2FE primary school on the site of the former Lickhill Middle School.This time they had 591 responses of which 535 were against. Read that again carefully and compare it to the first consultancy question. The actual question itself has not changed merely the focus. This is made clear when you read the minutes of the meeting on page 5
The report made clear that the issues raised were largely to do with the establishment of a 2 FE Primary which had been the focus of the first round of consultation, rather than the method of implementing such a change whichThe first question was clear-cut "Are you in favour of closing Lickhill, and Stourport Primary Schools and replacing them with one big school?" the second was "Are you in favour of closing Lickhill Primary and expanding Stourport Primary?" In other words the second consultancy question sets up a bias. People who may not object to both schools being amalgamated may object to one school being amalgamated despite the end result being completely identical.
was the focus of the latest round of consultation.
Likewise is the case of not being able to respond to the unasked question "Are you in favour of closing Stourport Primary and expanding Lickhill Primary?", if you're going to move Stourport Primary anyway why not expand Lickhill instead? This question would never occur in the first phase because the ascendancy of one school over another only occurs in the second phase.
Poorly phrased people, poorly phrased.
Like some others on the original page the results are not only linked incorrectly but appear to be either missing or spelt wrongly. Again Tav comes through with a search term to locate the breakdown of results of the second consultancy and it's interesting to note the paucity of votes from the Stourport Primary camp, is this a case once again of 'won't affect me' syndrome?
So am I in favour of the amalgamation or not, well I can see both the case for a single new school and the current small-style teaching. Taking into account that Stourport Primary is likely to be moved regardless I have to fall in favour of the one big school. Even if the building of a new 1FE instead of a 2FE school leaves some extra money in the pot for spending on Lickhill, I think it will be like patching the system instead of pulling the thing apart and putting it down right.
I know this view won't do me any favours, but I try to be honest.
5 comments:
I appreciate your honesty, but surely the argument is not about buildings it is about education.
Lickhill primary school is a fantastic place where children are educated well, and where they are very happy. It has also won a national award for teaching and learning in ICT.
Lickhill Primary school's buildings were new 32 years ago. In 32 years time will we have the same debate about replacing the 2FE school?
"New buildings" are about short-term ends. After 5 years they are not new any more. However, long-term advantages in education are brought through school ethos, governor and teacher attitude and a relationship of the school with its community.
Lickhill Primary School is a rare example of a school that parents, pupils and the local community are prepared to fight tooth and nail to preserve. It goes without saying that it is a true community centre of excellence and specialist provision.
Surely we should be preserving what is good, instead of sacrificing it in favour of squeezing a two-storey building onto a site which is clearly too small to hold the new school and nursery.
And after the new-build houses come on line, the other sites have been disposed of and the schools run out of places, where then for the children of Stourport?
On the surface, it mas seem the logical thing to do. Scratch the surface and it's not as clear-cut as it appears.
I find it interesting that you make the point that it's about education and not the building, but your first argument is that Lickhill won an award. If it has nothing to do with the building then surely such an ethos is transferable?
If the sites in question were geographically disparate I would agree, but they're not; if the majority of staff at one school were to be lost I would agree, but they're not. From a community point of view, in fact, children from LPS may be mingling with children from SPS and building better ties between the originally separate catchment areas.
You point out that LPS is a school that is being fought for yet where are the respondents from SPS? Why aren't they complaining about exactly the same things?
Your next point touches on the concept of replacement for replacement's sake - if it ain't broke, don't fix it. While this concept seems to apply at a surface level I'll reiterate that a new school has always been planned for the LMS site and thus this falls into the 'well while we're doing this anyway' category. In this bracket replacing something 'good' for something of at least equal 'goodness' I see as potentially logically valid.
Your point on expansion is a good one. With the new housing being built more places may be required and if the new school isn't built to cope with the potential new pupils then it would look the wrong decision to make if the now-closed schools could have been expanded to cope. However I do have to note the two "if"'s in my statement and weight it accordingly.
So while you've raised some points, I still have to fall on the side of the new school, but please do continue to argue; whatever a certain Councillor might think I don't set my decisions in stone.
OK, let's look at these points one-by-one.
Lickhill Primary school has a friendly, family-style ethos, where all pupils are known by staff and vice-versa. It is a widely-acknowledged fact that in larger schools, the family-type atmosphere disappears as staff only have regular contact with a much smaller proportion of the school. This then accounts for children feeling less a part of the whole school and more part of a section or clique within the school.
Academic research has shown that children benefit from a smaller school environment precisely because of this, and their attitude to their education and therefore educational outcomes improve. By this, it is not just examination results, but participation in extra-curricular activities, inter-pupil and staff/pupil relationships are better and children see benefits from a smaller school environment. A summary by Kathleen Cotton of a wide range of academic studies shows this very clearly.
The staff and governors will not simply transfer to the new school as is implied by both the council and yourself. Reading carefully the report to cabinet, staff transferring from Lickhill will only be guaranteed a two-year stay at the expanded school, and then only if they had been employed by the school on 1st September 2007. Any staff arriving after this date will not transfer. Add to this the non-guarantee of a permanent place in the new school, staff will look for jobs elsewhere and move away during the closure notice period for Lickhill Primary School, leaving children with temporary, short-term teachers as they wait for the school to close. The school will not be able to replace leaving staff with high-quality teachers due to the fact that it will only be able to offer short-term contracts.
This will affect Lickhill Primary School for THREE years: not exactly short-term and it will have a detrimental effect on the pupils' education.
So to take your next point, it is difficult to see a situation where the majority of the staff will NOT be lost as they look to secure their (and their families' future) elsewhere.
SPS will retain its staff because it is not closing. SPS will retain its governors because it is not closing. It will lose the small educational environment of a 1FE school, but it was 1.5FE as a First school and so many parents will not see this as a change that will affect them too much. Parents of pupils at Lickhill Primary, however, value the small size and family atmosphere of the school as is evident from the consultation responses. For many, the small-school atmosphere was the major reason that they chose the school for their children.
A new building was originally planned as well for the Lickhill Primary School site, and an initial budget of £3.2M was given to the project during the Wyre Forest Schools' review. The documentation to show this was given in the full council meeting in February 2005 I think. So, for the council to then reduce the budget, complain about the standard of the buildings and then say that the school needs to close is a little out-of-order. Of the original cost estimates, to rebuild the two schools would cost £6.4M. To Build the combined school would be £6.0M. In a total budget for the Wyre Forest Review of £150M, the difference is negligible. Why change the original decision at a late stage, causing more uncertainty and more disruption to our children's education?
It seems that people who know how the school performs on a day-to-day basis are against the closure, but people with little personal knowledge of the establishment are more likely to be in favour of the closure. This is because we have seen first hand the excellent provision for our children at Lickhill Primary School: andlong may it continue.
On the topic of smaller-schools being better, I agree with your statements; however I have to point out that a disruptive influence or poor teacher will result in a wider affect for the same reasons. I could also point out that such a small schooling could lead to a greater degree of isolation or overwhelming when moving up to larger schools.
On the teachers moving over, but only guaranteed for two years; you are correct this would lead to the lack of support from SPS suggested by the consultancy and disruption. I can't even state that this could lead to a clearing of 'deadwood' if the SPS staff are being prioritised.
Your point on the new building is the clincher if a new building was planned for LPS and a new building for SPS and the cost would be approximately equal to one new building, then this isn't about education it's about long-term costs for staff wages and equipment.
Although I've already stated the benefits of one large site if the budget had already been prepared for two new sites then this looks a bit ripe.
With these points in mind I have to acknowledge that the benefits I've mentioned have been over-balanced by the existing and previous plans.
Keep LPS and SPS and revert to the original plan.
Well, nearly a year on, but we finally got our way. Well done to June Brown, the Schools Adjudicator, and all the people who fought tirelessly for the school.
Post a Comment