Marie-Annick Gournet and Ruth Myers met with Heather Tomlinson, Bristol’s Director of the Department of Children, Schools and Families, Peter Hammond, Deputy Leader of Bristol City Council and Executive Member for Bristol’s Department for Children, Schools and Families and Piers Brunning, Strategy Leader for Innovation and Access on Thursday 18th June.
The meeting was to discuss the plans for the Urban Village School. Below are the exchange of e mails between Ruth Myers and Heather Tomlinson. Please feel free to post your comments and responses to this exchange on the blog.
20.06.2008
Sent to Peter Hammond, Piers Brunning, Heather Tomlinson
(cc Marie-Annick Gournet)
Dear Peter, Piers and Heather,
Thankyou for meeting with Marie-Annick and myself today. I had promised that I would feedback the outcomes of our meeting to the Urban Village School group via the blog http://urban-village-school.blogspot.com
Before I do that I would like to verify that I have accurately quoted you and that I have not made any obvious omissions.
We understood that all three of you liked the vision that we set out, however,
Heather
- explained that the BSF money has already been spent and that Human Scale education was economically unviable,
- felt that 1.9 km was not too far to walk and that the busy roads that are suggested as part of the safer route to Fairfield are an unfortunate reality of living in a city,
- recognised that we feel that Fairfield no longer truly serves our community and felt that Fairfield needed to work harder to make us feel a part of that community,
- was interested in us working with the existing provision i.e. Fairfield and would be happy to make contact with the school on our behalf,
- said that smaller schools made it difficult to appoint teachers of a high calibre and that flatter management structures would make less of a difference financially these days as there is less of a discrepancy between senior management pay and the rest of the staff.
- questioned why they would invest in a school in Ashley Ward along Human Scale dimension when this could lead to a 110 small scale secondary schools across the city and that this would be economically unviable.
Peter
- raised the issue of there being insufficient primary school places in Ashley Ward and that this has become a priority for them,
- highlighted that the old Fairfield site was not an option as it was needed for the St. Barnabas expansion,
- suggested the trust approach; looking at the idea of schooling from 0 through to 19 and wondered whether we might want to play a role in the transition from primary to secondary school and become involved in how to shape secondary school experience,
- was also interested in us working with the existing provision and felt that we could operate as a group that could influence Fairfield and that our vision could help to make Fairfield more successful.
Piers
- warned that the 7,000 houses for Lockleaze that are mentioned in the preferred option in the Local Development Framework Core Strategy might not necessarilly be filled by families and would not therefore impact on Fairfield,
- said that given the current climate with regards to the housing market the 7,000 houses may not be built at all or postponed until 2026.
I hope that this is an accurate representation of our meeting. I am hoping to publish the outcomes of our meeting early next week.
Thank you again for your time.
Regards
Ruth Myers
20.06.2008
Sent to Ruth Myers
(cc Peter Hammond, Piers Brunning, Marie-Annick Gournet)
Thanks for this Ruth. It was good to meet you too. I don't think that these points entirely reflect what we said, but I'll let you have something back by close of play on Monday.
Many thanks H
23.06.2008
Sent to Ruth Myers
Dear Ruth,As requested, please find below my notes of our meeting last week:
Heather explained that:
a) The council very much supports the view that 'Human scale' education important to children, school staff and communities, but believes, as does James Wetz, that these conditions can be effectively created within larger units of provision. James, for example, showcased Brislington Engineering College as a good example of this. Merchant's and City Academies are further examples.
b) All Building Schools for the Future (BSF) and secondary capital funding has already been invested to rebuild and refurbish Bristol's existing secondary schools. Half of the schools are already built, as is Fairfield; other schools are being built now. No further funding is available to create an additional secondary school in Bristol. The next wave of funding for building schools in Bristol is earmarked by the government for primary schools. Funding an additional school would require closing a newly built school. This is not an option that either the council or government would consider because it would waste millions of pounds of taxpayers money.
c) All state schools are funded through a national pupil-led formula. Small units of provision struggle to provide the curriculum flexibility now required by government. This is only affordable where there are economies of scale. Small schools are unable to afford the same support and development opportunities for staff that larger schools are able to provide, which affects recruitment. Flat management structures can be achieved in any size of school.
d) Government policy is that 3 miles is the limit that secondary pupils should be expected to walk or cycle to school. The distance of 1.9 km between your community and Fairfield School is half that distance. The busy roads that are suggested as part of the safer route to Fairfield are an unfortunate reality of living in a city. Also, Bristol's secondary schools are fast becoming the most up to date learning facilities in the country, which is well worth a slightly longer walk to school compared to a short walk to unfit-for-purpose provision. Providing a secondary school for every local community would result in as many secondary schools as primary schools, which is clearly completely unviable.
e) Parents may miss the former Fairfield provision, because it was on the doorstep and felt central to the local community. This relationship can and will be re-created if the school and the community work together to achieve it. Fairfield has worked hard to reach out to its community and the council will help in any way it can to help build on this work.
Peter
a) Raised the issue of there being insufficient primary school places in Ashley Ward and that this has become a priority for them.
b) Highlighted that the old Fairfield site was not an option as it was needed for the St. Barnabas expansion.
c) Suggested that we consider the trust approach; looking at the idea of schooling from 0 through to 19 and wondered whether we might want to play a role in the transition from primary to secondary school and become involved in how to shape secondary school experience.
d) Was also interested in us working with the existing provision and felt that we could operate as a group that could influence Fairfield and that our vision could help to make Fairfield more successful.
Piers
a) Warned that it was not guaranteed that the 7,000 houses for Lockleaze mentioned in the preferred option in the Local Development Framework Core Strategy might be filled by families and impact on Fairfield.
b) Said that given the current climate with regard to the housing market the 7,000 houses may not be built in the near future * possibly postponed until nearer 2026.
Regards.
Heather
