Leiston big winner as Suffolk CC change school transport plans

Following the consultation on school transport that was reported in detail on this Blog the County Council have gone away and made some changes to their proposals.

The most significant change is in the Leiston and Saxmundham area where the original proposal would have seen this area split in two and transport only provided to the nearest school.

The revised proposal provides free transport to all children in the area to Lesiston as “catchment” school with free travel to the free school an option only for those for whom it is the nearest school.

This will come as a further blow to Seckford who are already struggling to recruit children to Saxmundham but good news to the established Lesiton Alde Valley School.

Banner for Saxmundham Free School
"modified" by angry parents

Most importantly it will answer the concerns of parents in Saxmundham who were dismayed at effectively being forced to send their children to a free school they did not think would suit them due to its narrow curriculum and approach to special educational needs in particular.


The changes elsewhere are more modest as this information from Suffolk’s press release shows:

 Haverhill/Clare/Sudbury – Transport Priority Areas (TPAs) would be used but adjusted to follow primary school catchment boundaries

Mildenhall/Brandon - Transport Priority Areas (TPAs) would be used but adjusted to follow primary school catchment boundaries with children living in Lakenheath being eligible for travel to either school

Leiston/Saxmundham – The local authority would continue offering eligible children free transport to Leiston High School based on the school’s catchment area. Free transport will only be offered to the free school if it is an eligible child’s nearest school

Beccles – As the two sites are so close, free transport would be offered to both, as long as the child meets the eligibility criteria.

The proposals will go to Suffolk County Council’s Cabinet that meets at West Suffolk House in Bury St Edmunds next Tuesday 10th July at 11am, you can see the full cabinet papers online.

Cllr Graham Newman, Education Portfolio Holder comments:

Cllr Graham Newman 

Home-to-school transport is an issue in which many parents have a very understandable interest and for some, it is a critical consideration when expressing preferences for their child’s schooling.

The introduction of free schools in Suffolk means that we have to look at the way we decide to which school, or schools, an eligible young person gets free transport. “Public consultation is all about giving people the opportunity to say what they think about proposed changes.

We’ve listened very carefully to the arguments that have been made and, I firmly believe, we’ve been able to improve the proposals.

I’m confident that we’ve found a workable solution that will both make transport decisions fair for everyone whilst at the same time protecting taxpayers’ interests.

I certainly think the revised proposals are an improvement and they address the main concerns especially in the Saxmundham and Lesiton area. It also sets a much less alarming precedent for Thurston in particular.

I would now expect the Thurston area to see free transport to Thurston Community College for its entire catchment with the option of free travel to the free school for those closest to Ixworth. That is if a free school does go ahead there which is looking increasingly unlikely.

Saxmundham Free School's low numbers exposed

Ian Flintoff, Leiston Headteacher

The incredibly low numbers of applicants for Beccles Free School - 37 across three year groups - has perhaps taken the spotlight off Saxmundham Free School. Unlike Beccles this school certainly had some local support in Saxmundham but a fundamental problem remains. A lack of children.

Saxmundham is a small town with around 4000 inhabitants and whilst there has been new housing in the area the town suffers from the same issue that the rest of rural Suffolk does. These houses don't tend to bring families with school age children.

Speaking in an article in the East Anglian Daily Times, Ian Flinfoff Head of Leiston High School (soon to be renamed as Alde Valley School) says:

We made it clear during the consultation phase that an additional school in a rural area with declining pupil numbers was not needed. Saxmundham Free School will start its life 70% empty and Beccles Free School 90% empty.

We are also led to believe the free schools will receive plentiful capital monies and a large start up grant. This is hardly a wise use of public funds in a time of austerity and in a rural area with a substantial surplus of school places as a consequence of demographic decline. 

The loss of income to our school caused by the reduced number of students attending Alde Valley School in September will inevitably affect the resources we can expect to spend on our own pupils, many of whom come from the Saxmundham community.

Saxmundham has capacity for 108 children in each year group and on opening has 324 spaces in Years 7, 8 and 9. The article reveals that only 98 children have applied. This is a drop from the 132 revealed to have expressed an interest earlier this year.

As Flintoff reveals this makes the school 70% empty on opening. This in itself would probably be national news if not for the fact Beccles Free School will be 90% empty.

It is difficult to know why there has been such a decline in interest but there is speculation that at least some of this is collateral damage from what is happening up the road in Beccles. Transport and the attitude of the Seckford Foundation to special educational needs could also be factors.

Whatever the reasons despite an advertising campaign the numbers for both Seckford schools are falling rather than rising. We are seeing parental choice in action here, but not quite in the way Seckford - who put posters up saying your child, your choice - expected.

Beccles Free School: Just who is making "misleading" claims?

In a letter sent to parents in the Beccles area -  a full copy can be seen on Wikisuffolk - Rob Cawley the Principal of the Seckford Free Schools Trust says:

Unfortunately there has been a great deal of misinformation put into the public domain

Cawley goes even further in an email message:

During this meeting however, I was dismayed to hear of the level of misinformation there is the community about the Free School. As a Trust, we have deliberately avoided getting involved in any direct discussions with those who are distributing this propaganda as we believe our educational message stands strongly on its own merits

This seems a clear reference to information produced by the successful campaign against the school. Cawley does not say what this misinformation is but does enclose a leaflet with information about the school.

Unfortunately the attached information itself actually very misleading. But don’t just take my word for it here is some evidence!

Claim 1: “Refurbishment at Carlton Colville is well underway with new science laboratories, additional classrooms, books and materials."


This claim isn’t so much misleading as completely untrue. You can see below some photographs taken today at the school that show no apparent work at all has happened. Apparently someone has stolen lead from the roof of the school and there has been a small fire but no renovations.

Full Size Images and a few more photos at Wikisuffolk

Interestingly Graham Watson told Waveney District Council’s Scrutiny Committee that very little work needed to be done. New toilets and “knocking a few walls down” was what he said as he tried to convince the Committee it would not be a large expense.

Claim 2: “As a former inspector and Director of Learning for Cambridgeshire the Headteacher appointed to lead Beccles Free School is highly experienced and qualified"


In fact the new Head was Director of Learning at a single school in Cambridgeshire. This is the worst performing school in the whole County where only 19% of children achieve 5 Grade A-Cs at GCSE including Maths and English.

The constant attacks by Seckford on Sir John Leman and Leiston Schools suggesting their results are unacceptable and below the national average seem incredibly ironic given this fact that Seckford have kept very quiet indeed.

Claim 3: “A huge range of sporting, musical, enterprise and artistic opportunities will be available for children" 


With no sports field other than a tiny outdoor play area and hardly any children these claims appear very unlikely and Cawley himself has admitted previously that the same range of exra-curricular activities that are available elsewhere cannot be expected at such a small school.

Claim 4: “The Seckford Foundation have a long track record of providing excellent education"


The Seckford Foundation have only ever run a single school. They have never run a state school. never run a non-selective all ability school. At their last inspection Woodbridge did not have a single child with a statement of special educational needs.

So whilst the Seckford Foundation do indeed have a long record it is not a relevant track record and it only relates to one school.

Claim 5: “Students will study qualifications that are preferred by employers and Universities"


About 60% of pupils will not go to University or other tertiary education. Universities are mainly concerned in any case with A Level Results not GCSEs.

It is impossible to make a statement about what “employers” prefer as it depends completely on the employer and the job.

When I visited the Ormiston Victory Academy recently I was shown round the beauty salon. The students there studied for vocational qualifications that had actually already meant they had found employment. For that work this was the qualification needed and getting it meant they had a job to go to.

This statement is an attempt to sell a disadvantage (not offering any vocational qualifications) as if it was an advantage.

Conclusion


I must say I am extremely unhappy that local schools have distributed this material from Seckford. As you can see above it is misleading. It is also wrong in my view for schools to circulate claims from Seckford accusing other people of circulating “misleading” information when there is not a shred of evidence for this claim.

How convenient that Cawley has "deliberately avoided getting involved in any direct discussions with those who are distributing this propaganda”. He has avoided it because he knows that he’s wrong.

If Seckford think that others are making misleading claims they need to prove it. So far they had not even said what claims they allege to be misleading.

As things stand it appears that it is true that misleading propaganda has been put into the public domain. By the Seckford Foundation Free Schools Trust.