Why is a popular school being closed down - against parents' wishes?

Sometimes, government promises and proclamations can sound a little hollow. When it comes to schools, Ed Balls talks often of parental choice. Hearing this, many parents shake their heads as they know that it's a promise which hasn't been fulfilled for them. But in Stoke-On-Trent, many parents are doing more than shake their heads. They are campaigning vigorously. And this is not because they don't have a choice of good school to send their children to; it's because they feel their choice is being taken away for no good reason. This may be a "local" story, but it has a much larger resonance.

Julian Teed is a father of two from Stoke. His son is set to start at Trentham High School, a local community school which is under the auspices of the LEA, this coming September. In the new league tables and GCSE results, it's the top performing non-selective school in the city. And Louis Teed is going to start there, even though the school is under threat of closure. It, and another local school, Blurton, are set to be amalgamated and turned into an Academy. That Academy will be opening in September 2010.

"Trentham is a well loved and respected school in the centre of our community," says Teed. "Every child can walk or cycle there, it is perfect."

Two years ago, Trentham High went into special measures. A new head, Sue Chesterton, was brought in and she appears to have turned the school around. It came out of special measures a year later, the day after parents were told at a consultation evening that the school would be closing. Trentham High  is now second only to St Joseph's, a grammar school and 57 percent of the children just received 5 A-C grades in their recent GCSEs, including maths and English. The head is convinced that this will continue, indeed improve, if the school is given a chance.

"I've always argued that it is potentially one of the highest performing schools in this city" says Ms Chesterton. "And parents are delighted with the progress we've made. Academies are normally for failing schools, but neither Blurton or Trentham are failing. It's very strange."

It certainly is strange, but for parents, it is horribly real. They feel that change is imminent, and that the government's fondness for Academies and reluctance for be drawn into local battles, means they are fighting a losing battle. I'm afraid they are right; but I don't know why.

Sue Chesterton feels that parents have fought a very long and hard battle over this. "They feel very let down," she says. "They feel betrayed by the council...the community is centred around the school."

Trentham  - which caters for 11-16 year olds - is not a huge school. It lost some pupils when it went into special measures and has just under 600 pupils at present. But it is part of a community, open every evening for community activities and with sports facilities which are heavily used by local residents. With all this local involvement, the school appears to be behaving exactly as the government wants its schools to. But it is still in danger.

The current situation began because of Stoke's involvement in the Building Schools for the Future (BSF)programme. This has the specified aim of "Placing the school at the heart of the community", an aim which may well sound more than a little hollow to local parents.

Stoke on Trent council has had problems with its schools for a few years now (that's a understatement: it was named the third worst local authority for education in the country). It brought in a private company, Serco, to assess what should happen next as part of the BSF programme and Serco decided that various schools should be closed down or amalgamated. Parents at another school, St Joseph's College, are also up in arms.

Julian Teed, who is part of the Save Trentham High campaign, says that he and other parents don't want a huge school (the new Academy would be aimed at 900-1200 pupils, which seems too small:if you add the current pupils from Trentham and Blurton together, it comes to over 1400). The council claims that birth rates are falling, and that is partly why some schools need to be closed, but parents dispute that. They also claim there are major safety issues with the changes. The only way to the new school (which will be located on the Blurton site) is down a very busy main road.

"It's a travesty" he says.

Parents are also unhappy that the choice of sponsor for the Academy is the Ormiston Trust, which at least according to its website, is set up to help disadvantaged children. They have been campaigning for over a year, but feel that they are simply not being listened to. Ed Balls has said that he's happy for parents to get stuck into their schools and set up smaller secondaries. But the Save Trentham parents, who feel that this is exactly what they want to do, are not finding that it's possible. And this is despite the fact that no new school would save the council an awful lot of money!

Jim Knight, the Schools Minister, talked about this last November, but parents won't be thrilled by what he said (you can see his comments here; he seems to take all the councils' assertions as correct).

No story is one-sided, and a spokesman for the council says that parents' views and opinions have been "taken into account throughout the consultation process." He adds. "We do understand their concerns. The Building Schools for the Future programme is ongoing and we will continue to consult and draw opinions from parents and all those who who have an interest in the education of children in Stoke-on-Trent."

Parents are expecting the council to make its decision on January 21st, but I'm afraid that it has already been taken. The report, which you can see here (dated January 21st) clearly states: "That the Council approves the publication of the statutory notices proposing the closure of Brownhills, James Brindley, Berry Hill, St. Peter’s CE, Mitchell, Edensor, Blurton and Trentham High Schools to enable the establishment of five replacement academies in accordance with the timetable outlined in section 7." This is despite the fact that the report contains a litany of concerns from parents. How depressing - and yet not surprising at all.

Read School Gate on:

What the league tables don't tell you

What do you want to ask the Schools Minister?

Do you trust the Tories more than Labour when it comes to education

My daughter has HIV. Should I tell her teacher?

Comments

[jonquil]

what a pity the government has put the fancy new trend of academies before the well-being of the students & their families! especially given the horrendous financial situation, it appears outright callous to be wasting money on an unnecessary building.

[Zoe Robinson]

Academies built on the ruins of good schooling is further evidence that this joke of a government does not want educated, thinking people in this country. If they can destroy the education of our children, they can breed a nation of ignorant, selfish and unquestioning plebeians that will let the government of the day do whatever it wants.

[Stuart Thompson]

Parents have lived with this council’s pretence of a consultation for over a year now.
We are angry, frustrated and totally perplexed by the council’s decision to close our local community high school.
Parents walked from Trentham to Westminster last year to deliver a petition of 12,000 names asking for the high school to be kept open. This was ignored.
The council has received 1,100 letters and 70 emails of objection (and no letters of support) to the closure over the last 2 months. These are being ignored.
The local MP’s objected over the closure. They were ignored.
We have shown that the council’s pupil projections are wrong. This was ignored.
The school has raised its GCSE pass rate by 23% points in 3 years. This was ignored.
The proposed sponsor even agreed that the schools should not be merged. This was ignored.
Jim Knight stated that smaller schools should not be closed because of there size, but then went ahead and agreed the proposal anyway.
The Prime Minister stated that the school should not be closed unless there was a very good reason for it. It would appear that land value is one of the new guidelines for selecting schools to be closed.
Stoke-on-Trent city council has ignored all advice other than their own, and when you consider the state of education in the city, they are not exactly in the position to ignore others advice as the city has the proud honour of having the first school rebuilt with BSF funding to go into special measures. The city's GCSE results have gone up, but at a rate lower than the national average and if you take away the results of Trentham High School, the average doesn’t go up at all.
The private company that is leading the council’s plans gains its bonus’s for an average increase in GCSE passes for the entire city and this is what is driving their quick fit reorganisation; mix all the schools together in new buildings and hope for the best!
The government claim that EVERY CHILD MATTERS.
If every child matters, why don’t mine?

[Amy]

The parents, teachers and pupils of Trentham High School have done everything they can for more than 12 months to convince the council that they do not want their popular and successful high school to close. Ed Balls and Jim Knight both know about the situation but maintain that "these are local decisions". At the same time they are signing off BSF money for proposals which plainly go against the wishes of of the communities involved. Local councillors claim that they have been told by central government that they have to close a number of schools and that they also have to have academies in order to qualify for BSF money. Jim Knight denies this. Someone, be it central or local government is telling lies. Either way, the shoddy way in which parents have been treated throughout this process does not cover the labour party in glory. There are other local authorities who have not yet started their BSF process and many other parents who are destined to learn the devastating news that that their local community high school has to close to make way for a much larger academy. Jim Knight puports to want "....a school system shaped by parents". Not likely!

[Ian Hookway]

Putting aside the facts that Trentham is the best performing non-selective schools in Stoke and the Council openly admits that within 4 years of completing its BSF programme there will be at least 1600 pupils with no secondary school place in the City, parents are being treated to the spectacle of local and central government politicians each trying to blame the other for the fact that 'difficult [i.e. bonkers] decisions have to be taken'.

Meanwhile there will either be 500 more cars doing school runs each morning and afternoon or children will have to walk the 7 mile round journey over the canal, over the west coast mainline, along the narrow pavement by the main road, across the industrial estate and back again!

Not to worry though, the Council report assures us that after Trentham High School has closed they'll get round to doing a transport assessment as part of their commitment to promoting safer routes to the schools which they of course wish to place in the very heart of our communities.

But, never mind, every child matters and Ed Balls is putting parents at the heart of the education system!

[Dragon]

The excellent school at Sipton will be bull dozed, and the whole village community will disappear. Added to that 3 other schools are to be demolished, as far as I can make out, just to make way for the 3rd runway at Heathrow. Thousands of homes will be rendered uninhabitable by the 50% increase in planes with their noise and pollution, so I haven't much sympathy with the loss of 1 school at Stoke. The Government isn't listening to us either, and thousands will be affected here, not just a few hundred. If every child matters, why are the lives of our children to be ruined?

[Wendy V]

The cautionary tale about Trentham High is ringing alarm bells, as my own area is about to embark on unpopular plans to reorganise its schools and pitch for BSF money under the rules of the 2006 act, which means our community comprehensives becoming "new" schools, let by competition. Few parents appear to be aware of the ramifications.

When did we decide that popular and successful community comprehensive schools should be sacrificed to this grand experiment to make every school a trust school or Academy? Watch out, this is coming to an area near you.

[Andrew Pate]

We too are desperate to keep open our local high school (Trentham High School in Stoke on Trent). Currently, we have one daughter (Lauren) at the high school in Year 7 and she loves it and another one (Charlotte) at the local primary school in Year 3. There are so many reasons why the council should not even be contemplating closing the school - we have listed these reasons to the council time after time and they simply refuse to listen. For a start, the school is now very successful; they achieved 57% 5A*-C (inc. Eng and Maths), which is the second best performance in the city and the best non-selective school. The school should be used an example for others to follow. It has recently come out of special measures (only two years ago) with the immense help of Mrs Sue Chesterton. She has turned the school around, showing direction and excellent leadership. The results can only keep getting better and better, because she will have been able to have had an impact lower down the school in KS3, which will carry on through to the GCSE years in the next couple of years. The council have continually argued that there will not be enough pupils to fill the school. However, they also propose to abolish catchment areas. Therefore, I would suggest that being the second best school in the city, it would attract enough pupils even right now. However, in 2019 there will be an extra 1600 more pupils at secondary school age, which equates to another two schools. Yet the council, despite accepting this situation, have no solution to this. Logically, we should keep open our best schools - Trentham High for one.

Additionally, there is the serious aspect of health and safety. At the moment, Lauren walks to school - the school is at present in our local community and perfectly safe to walk to. The location of the proposed new academy to replace our school will NOT be safe for her to walk to. She would have to walk along a busy main road (Longton Road) over the canal and main line railway. It is a fast road. Currently, a fast food outlet and supermarket is being built along side the Longton Road. A lot of lorries and HGVs use this road already, so there will be even more in the future. Also, lorries will be turning around when making deliveries etc. I really do fear for the many children that will be FORCED to walk along this road. It has serious implications. There could be a serious accident. The council are deaf to all this. They still have not completed a health and safety assessment for the journey to school - quite unbelievable. I even fear that they are trying to get out of doing this by bringing forward the closure of the school to 2010. They are trying to accelerate the programme by wanting to close the school in 2010 and allow it to be taken over by the Ormiston Trust. The Ormiston Trust will then run two schools on two separate sites temporarily for two years. They could argue that there is no need to complete a health and safety assessment whilst the trust run the academy on two separate sites (Blurton and Trentham). When Trenham High is then demolished in 2012, there is no way back and will a health and safety assessment be completed far too late?

The council, we are sure, will ignore over 1100 objections and recommend closure of the school on the 21 January. Interestingly, there were ONLY FOUR letters of support for the proposals. We really do fear the council want this valuable building land in Trentham at all costs. Our soon to be deposed Mayor has said publically that housing is an issue in the city and they need to build more houses. Trentham would be a favoured location of the council. We are only thinking about our children; they only have one chance at a good education and our council are doing their utmost to deprive them of it.

[J Barker]

The Trentham High School situation is almost comical. Here in Stoke there is forecast to be a shortage of secondary school places, and here we are shutting a successful school, purely on the basis of future assurances that assessments of the transport situation will be looked into. There is no better opportunity for Labour to demonstrate that they want parental involvement in schools - but parents here are being completely ignored.

[Education, Education, Education]

Get organised and fight the destruction of good schools and prevent these so-called sponsors from being given young minds to manipulate. I was part of a group which stopped the closure of the best school in Darlington and plans to merge it with the worst. We took on the local council, our two local MPs (Milburn & Blair)and the then DfES and won - it was bloody hard work, more like a full time job, but if you are organised and committed it can be done. Expose their claims and justifications, lobby the press and government departments, organise demonstrations and convoys,ridicule them at their whitewash "public consultations" - in short be the activists that you may have wished to have been in your youth! DO IT. YOU CAN BEAT THEM! Good Luck.

[Organised Chaos]

This situation reminds me of when I worked in the Public Sector and a manager had this quote on his wall:

We trained very hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams we would be reorganised. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganising – and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress, while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralisation.

Caius Petronius (66 A.D)

Yup, that about sums the whole sorry mess up doesn't it.

[Nicky]

Interestingly, in Trentham, we have recently had our application to become a trust school with a parent's cooperative as a trust partner, APPROVED by the DCSF. This shows that we have an excellent vision for the future and those in the DCSF who are properly considering such cases realise this and grant us permission to go ahead.

This represents a perfectly acceptable alternative that caters for choice and diversity and is well in line with Ed Balls' ambitions for schools.

It does not however in itself prevent Stoke-on-Trent from closing the school if they are still idiotic enough to do so.

[Wendy V]

I just read that Stoke council has voted to close Trentham High and other Stoke schools and replace with academies:
http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/news/Angry-protesters-fail-derail-schools-closure-vote/article-634780-detail/article.html