Stephen Hodgson

Archive for the ‘Education’ Category

Leicester Mercury education correspondent Ian Wishart has blogged about the recent news that Leicestershire County Council’s bid to improve schools in Loughborough, Barrow and Quorn has fallen through.

Ian’s analysis is a useful summary of what happened and where it leaves the county council’s plans to change the education system across Leicestershire – and in Loughborough, Barrow and Quorn.

Ian sums up the rather bleak position:

You only have to look at the new school buildings in the city of Leicester, which was in the first phase of the government’s Building Schools for the Future (BSF) money, to see the transformation that can take place. I have walked around all of the four so far and they are quite amazing places.

Leicestershire is already practically the lowest-funded per-pupil education authority in the country. Now there will be no real investment in school buildings for the foreseeable future either.

The government says Leicestershire could resubmit its bid at a later date. But let’s be honest – this was all-or-nothing. While even the Conservatives haven’t (yet) said categorically they will shelve the BSF scheme, the post-general election financial landscape will be very different, whoever gets in.

The entire post is well worth reading.

Things have moved quickly since Monday (8 March 2010) when the government’s Partnerships For Schools quango announced it had decided not to progress Leicestershire County Council’s Building Schools for the Future (BSF) bid. A successful bid would have unlocked £80m of government investment for schools in Loughborough, Barrow and Quorn and enabled the county council to both reorganise schools, moving to a ‘through’ school basis (11-16 or 11-18), and to invest in new buildings and equipment. It was bitterly disappointing to find out that the county council’s bid had not succeeded.

Here’s how events have played out since Monday:

Monday 8 March 2010

Partnerships For Schools confirmed Leicestershire’s bid had not progressed. The Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) issued a press release naming the successful BSF bids.

Loughborough MP Andy Reed asked the Secretary of State Ed Balls about the county’s BSF bid in Parliament. Ed Balls used the question as an opportunity to attack the Conservatives instead of as an opportunity to offer any real assistance (much as Harriet Harman misused Andy Reed’s question about AstraZeneca in the same way just last week).

Andy Reed wrote on his website:

I will now ask for an urgent meeting with County Council officials to see what they plan to do next. I don’t want them to walk away from BSF and the £80m that could be available. I don’t want them to try and come up with a cheap version of reorganisation. They should continue to work up a proper widely supported BSF Bid which will not split the town again.

I am happy to help them rebuild the trust they have lost amongst so many parents and staff as the future of our children’s education is at stake.

Prospective Conservative MP for Loughborough Nicky Morgan said Andy Reed had tried to “derail” the county’s bid:

This is a lost opportunity for our students, both present and future. It is also a huge blow to plans for a new Area Special School. Yet again the Labour Government has ignored Leicestershire’s schools and pupils and shown it is not interested, despite its rhetoric, in making a difference to children’s lives in our local area. They were aided by Loughborough’s Labour MP who seemed to forget that he represents residents from across the constituency, including on the West of Loughborough and outside the town. Everyone I spoke to wanted to make the change to 11-16 education – even Option C campaigners. But Mr Reed worked to derail Leicestershire’s bid and then blame the County Council. I absolutely understand why staff, governors and students at Limehurst and Garendon did not want their schools to close. But it is an MP’s (and prospective MP’s) duty to stand back from individual situations and work out what is best for the whole community. Mr Reed failed to do that and, as a consequence, has let down several generations of students.

I spoke to the Conservative Shadow Minister for Schools on Friday. He assured me that a Conservative Government would scrap the surplus places rule almost immediately, which takes care of one problem Option C campaigners were facing. If elected I pledge to work with all interested bodies to see how we get over this and continue the move to 11-16 schools. It is also worth noting that a Conservative Government will allow parents and other groups to set up their own schools. We may need to explore this locally to structure the education we all want.

Tuesday 9 March 2010

The Leicester Mercury reported on the BSF bid not succeeding:

Leader of the county council David Parsons said he was “deeply disappointed”.

He said: “I will do all I can to ensure the one-through-school model for Loughborough, which many parents have spoken to me about, is delivered.

“However, I’m also aware of the views wishing to retain education provision on the Limehurst site.

“What neither the county council nor the Government can ignore is the big problem of surplus school places in Loughborough – currently 700. It is clear that something has to be done.”

The Mercury reported that local One Through School campaigner Simon Ghent is very disappointed – and blames Loughborough MP Andy Reed for negatively affecting the county’s bid:

Simon Ghent, a parent who has been campaigning for the changes as part of the One Through School group, said he was “absolutely appalled”.

He blamed MP Andy Reed and county councillor Jewel Miah who had both said Limehurst should remain open, even though the council said this would be least likely to get funding.

Mr Ghent said: “They spoke in favour of plans they knew their own Government wouldn’t accept.

“We’re stuffed now. What we are left with is how to implement the one-through-school system with next to no money.

“I’m not only gutted personally but I’m also very annoyed that we’ve been campaigning hard for three years and now have nothing to give future generations.”

But Labour borough and county councillor Jewel Miah told the Mercury that the bid failing is “good news” for Limehurst High School:

Labour county councillor Jewel Miah, who was fighting against the plans to close Limehurst, said: “It’s devastating for Leicestershire that the bid has failed but for people campaigning for Limehurst it’s good news.”

Wednesday 10 March 2010

The leader of the Labour group at County Hall, Max Hunt, called for Leicestershire County Council’s Lead Member for the Children and Young People’s Service, Councillor Ivan Ould, to resign over the BSF bid.

The Mercury reported:

Labour has called for Leicestershire’s education chief to resign following the county’s failure to get cash to rebuild schools.

Councillor Max Hunt, leader of the Labour group at County Hall, said Councillor Ivan Ould should take responsibility for “the worst day the county’s education department has ever had”.

Coun Ould said he had no intention of resigning.

The Mercury continues:

Labour councillors and MP Andy Reed were criticised by Conservative councillors for not backing County Hall’s bid – in particular by opposing the closure of Limehurst High School, Loughborough, which some believe affected the bid.

Coun Ould said the Government had indicated it was looking favourably on Leicestershire’s bid – particularly as the county council had been encouraged to submit its plans earlier than expected.

The Leader of the Opposition at County Hall, Lib Dem Councillor Simon Galton, was also reported to be concerned:

Simon Galton, leader of the Liberal Democrat group, said he was not calling for Coun Ould’s resignation but there needed to be “a public apology” for the situation.

The Mercury sums up the present situation:

At a meeting of the county council’s cabinet yesterday, education bosses said they would now review the situation in Loughborough to consider what to do next.

It could mean officials will submit another bid or proceed with reorganisation, despite no money for new buildings.

Andy Reed wrote on his website:

I am very disappointed that Cllr David Parsons [the Leader of Leicestershire County Council] has taken every opportunity to try to spin his way out of their failure by blaming everybody else without taking any responsibility themselves. (sic)

He knows full well that their bid was not recommended by the independent body set up to look at bids – Partnership for Schools to Ministers. Ministers agree the recommendations made to them by P4Schools – they had no sight of the bids until they were given the list of 6 successful authorities deemed ready to deliver and a follow up list of a further 3 authorities nearly ready to deliver. So at best it is misleading to suggest Ministers and national politicians had any say over the final shortlist. They deliberately keep themselves out of the process until the very end. I call on him to withdraw these remarks so that local people can have trust in what they say about listening this time round (sic)

We still need consensus and partnership. Until he withdraws these misleading statement we cannot move forward (sic)

Andy Reed also went on, in a separate post, to directly attack local campaign group One Through School (OTS):

As soon as the plans were announced opposition groups were set up and Parents (sic) were organising. This is democracy in action. I attended meetings packed with angry parents demanding changes to the plans.

At this stage you would have thought County Hall would have shown some contrition and made serious attempts to find a solution. Instead they kept hiding behind the ‘criteria’ and Partnership for Schools technicalities.

Parents, schools and governors wanted more choices to consult on. The idea of opponents having to create their own Option C emerged as it became clear County Hall weren’t willing to listen or help.

I called a meeting of Heads and included the OTS campaign. Details of an Option C emerged and were agreed. It was far from a a detailed worked up option – but we did not have the resources of County Hall. Rightly we felt it was there (sic) job to do the detailed workings!

OTS suddenly dropped out a week later without telling anybody and then started attacking supporters of option C. This was the low point.

Friday 12 March 2010

Page 7 of tomorrow’s Loughborough Echo (12 March 2010) features a round-up of the BSF bid under the headline ‘£80m schools bid ends in failure’.

Summary

The news that the bid has failed is really disappointing for Loughborough, Barrow and Quorn. Clearly the next steps will be quite different to the current bid – we’re only weeks away from a General Election and whichever party forms the next government is going to have to work hard to reduce the national debt and that will include cutting budgets and reforming how departments work. Michael Gove, the Conservative education spokesman, has very different ideas about how education should work in England to present Labour Secretary of State Ed Balls.

Locally it’s frustrating and confusing to see the different messages coming from local Labour politicians.

On Monday MP Andy Reed wanted to talk to County Hall, he wanted an “urgent meeting” and he wanted to help the county council “rebuild trust”. By Wednesday he was “disappointed” with the county council, said he wouldn’t engage unless the Leader withdraws certain remarks and used his website to directly attack the One Through School campaign group!

On Tuesday Labour county councillor Jewel Miah said the bid failing was “good news”. On Wednesday the Labour group leader at county hall, Max Hunt, said the news was so bad that the Conservative Lead Member should resign!

What on earth are we to make of all this to-and-froing by local Labour politicians? The most obvious answer: they are trying to play politics with an £80m bid to improve education in Loughborough, Barrow and Quorn for many generations. Unfortunately the bid has now failed. I hope the county council will find a way round this set-back for moving to a through-school system in the Loughborough area and improving educational facilities but I know it won’t be easy.

The results of Leicestershire County Council’s consultation on Loughborough schools reorganisation were today published in a paper that will be sent to next week’s meeting of the county council’s Cabinet. The reorganisation proposals, part of an £80m funding bid under the government’s Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme, were put out to public consultation in January. The county council offered two options for consultation, with respondents also able to write in an option of their own choosing.

The county council’s options were:

Option A
An 11-16 school on the Burleigh/Garendon site with 1,200 places
Woodbrook Vale turned into an 11-16 school with 1,050 places
Limehurst tunred into a post-16 school with 800 places
Humphrey Perkins tunred into an 11-16 school with 900 places
Rawlins College rebuilt as an 11-16 school with 900 places
A new 4-19 area special school on the Burleigh/Garendon site with 120 places
Refurbishment of the existing De Lisle school
A new 14-19 university technical college close to Loughborough University

Option B
As Option A but with post-16 education provided by way of 449 sixth form places on the Burleigh/Garendon site and 335 sixth form places at Rawlins College

The governors of Garendon and Limehurst schools proposed an ‘Option C’ which would involve 11-16 schools at Garendon and Limehurst and a small 11-16 Woodbrook Vale school. Loughborough MP Andy Reed and local councillor Jewel Miah both encouraged people to respond to the consultation expressing the preferred choice of ‘Option C’.

The county council’s options A and B were designed in the way they were both to meet local educational needs but also to comply with the government’s national criteria to unlock funding through the BSF programme. I discussed this issue here a few weeks ago.

The results to-date of the consultation (which closes tonight) are:

Option A: 270 responses in favour
Option B: 311 responses in favour
Option C: 630 responses in favour
Other: 410 responses

Of course the county council has a duty to give regard to all consultation responses – but it also has a duty to follow national government guidelines and to try to secure significant additional funding for Leicestershire schools. On the basis that Option C does not meet the BSF bid criteria, and is therefore not a viable option if the county council is to secure £80m of investment, responses for Option C and other variants have had to be discounted by the county council. This leaves Option B (with 41 more responses than Option A) as the option recommended to the Cabinet by the county council’s Director of Children and Young People’s Service.

I had favoured Option A – for the reasons I gave in early February and for the reasons given by Councillor Peter Lewis in a letter to the Loughborough Echo just a couple of weeks ago. As Peter says, under Option A, Limehurt can be an exciting and vibrant post-16 school. Under Option B there won’t be a school on the Limehurst site.

I’m willing to hazard a guess that a lot of Option C responses came from parents, governors and teachers at Limehurst who want to see their school saved. It makes sense for parents, governors and teachers to want to protect a well-performing school and avoid the disruption of transforming Limehurst into a post-16 school. However, the BSF bid criteria set down by the national government mean that Option C would never have been a viable option – and if the county council elects for Option C, it will be throwing away the opportunity to unlock £80m of investment and to transform the way education is provided in Loughborough and surrounding areas. Sadly, the shift in responses away from the mainstream options offered by the county council (Options A and B) has created a split vote across Options A and B, with Option B just narrowly receiving more favourable responses than Option A.

If the county council’s Cabinet approves Option B next week then unfortunately the BSF bid will not involve creating a post-16 school at Limehurst.

The closing date for responses to Leicestershire County Council’s Building Schools for the Future (BSF) bid is Tuesday 2 March 2010 – less than a week from now.

If you live in Loughborough, Quorn or Barrow-upon-Soar and surrounding areas and you have an interest in the future of education in the area then please take a couple of minutes to complete the county council’s online consultation response form.

The bid will only succeed with the support of local people and positive consultation responses.

This week’s Loughborough Echo (19 February 2010) features a letter from borough and county councillor Peter Lewis about the county council’s ‘Building Schools for the Future’ (BSF) proposals. Peter’s letter, which is available to read in full on the Echo’s website, makes some excellent points about the schools reorganisation that perhaps haven’t so far received the attention they deserve:

Peter writes:

I’ve no wish to reiterate whats been well presented elsewhere, but rather to highlight two particular points not covered to date.

The first is, at least under Option A, education would not cease at Limehurst. The proposal is it would become a new Post 16 Centre for up to 800 students. Such a facility can offer the full range of diplomas, certificates, A levels etc., in a way smaller numbers could not. It also brings our young people into the heart of town, and were they to offer music, dance, plays etc., these and community activities would be easily accessible to the wider public because of the location – next to the new Inner Relief road – but far less dangerous than it would be for much younger children. I believe Limehurst would offer an exciting and vibrant place, bringing together all our local talents, working side by side. My personal view is that on balance this is better for students than being in smaller separate sixth forms – but I know many will disagree. But under Option A learning at Limehurst will continue.

My second point is to draw attention to the creation of our new Area Special School to replace Ashmount. This would not be affordable under the recently promoted alternative Option C. Ashmount has for years existed in buildings which were not even designed to be a school. It offers a wonderful and life-affirming school experience for our very vulnerable young people four-19. But the promise of a new school has remained unfulfilled until this exciting opportunity arose. This new school for 120 pupils is essential on both educational and moral grounds.We should not pay lip service by saying these pupils matter and then immediately ignoring them out of self interest. For this county and for Loughborough, it is right to put these special needs students high on our agenda.

If you haven’t already responded to the county council’s public consultation, please take a moment to fill in the consultation response form now – there are only two questions and it takes literally less than two minutes to register a positive vote in favour of unlocking £80m of investment that will benefit people in Loughborough, Quorn and Barrow for decades to come. The deadline for responses is Tuesday 2 March 2010.

Yesterday the Conservatives announced plans to give public sector workers the right to form John Lewis-style employee-owned co-operatives. The Conservatives policy is to allow employees throughout most of the public sector to run state-funded services as co-operatives to empower employees and free services from central bureucracy.

This is the sort of innovative policy that only the Conservatives are proposing and which has the potential to radically improve public services and improve conditions for people who work in the public sector – ranging from teachers to nurses to Job Centre Plus staff.

Whilst most of the talk about schools in Loughborough at the moment is focused on the county council’s Building Schools for the Future (BSF) bid (and we must not be distracted from that), it is interesting to think how the Conservatives education reform policy and policy on co-operatives would enable parents to quite literally take ownership of their children’s education and what a difference this could make to education in the future.

A summary of the proposals is available from the Conservatives.com website and there is also more information available from the Conservative Co-operative Movement.

There are now less than three weeks left for people in Loughborough, Quorn and Barrow and surrounding areas to respond to Leicestershire County Council’s consultation on its Building Schools for the Future (BSF) bid which, if successful, will unlock £80m of investment in schools in the Loughborough area. This really is a one-off opportunity for people in Loughborough and surrounding areas to get access to state-of-the-art secondary and special schools – but it will only happen if people support the county council’s bid and if the county council can demonstrate to the national government bodies that we have local support.

The leader of Charnwood Borough Council, Councillor Mike Preston, has put the case for supporting BSF extremely well:

We want Loughborough to be seen as a ‘learning community’. To raise Loughborough’s profile as a university town and now potentially a town with new secondary schools offering wider and up-to-date curriculum choices, state-of-the-art IT and new purpose built buildings which will make them among the best to be found anywhere in the UK.

And on leaving school, we want to see far more of our young people going to university. At the moment only about 23% go on, compared with 45% nationally. In a town that has one of the country’s leading universities!

There can be a perception at times that government consultations don’t make a real difference to outcomes. In the case of the county council’s BSF bid that is certainly not the case and it is crucial that parents, teachers, governors and others get involved in the consultation in a positive way.

Councillor Preston says:

We will only get the £80 million on the condition that people respond positively to the consultation. So it’s up to all Loughborough, Barrow and Quorn people, young and old, to really make it happen by really showing they want this opportunity to change – not just for now but for a whole new generation yet to come.

If the BSF bid is successful (and that is definitely an if at this stage), children in Loughborough, Quorn and Barrow would benefit from:

• * Better exam results by creating 11-16 and 11-19 schools (instead of the ‘middle school’ system)
• * More subject options, including more vocational diplomas
• * More specialisms giving them the opportunity to develop expertise in areas as broad as business, maths and modern languages

This is an opportunity not to be missed – but the county council’s bid will only succeed with the support of local people who are keen to transform learning in Loughborough, Quorn and Barrow and that’s why it is crucial for people to respond to the county council’s consultation.

The county council’s two BSF consultation options (known as ‘Option A’ and ‘Option B’) both involve closing Burleigh Community College, Garendon High School and Limehurst High School. Understandably parents and pupils at those schools want to know that the £80m of capital investment attached to a successful BSF bid is worth the upheaval associated with school reorganisation. The governors of Garendon High School and Limehurst High School have proposed an ‘Option C’ which would keep their schools open and which they have urged parents to write in on their consultation responses. The only problem with ‘Option C’ – and the reason it isn’t an official consultation response option – is that the government’s BSF programme requires local authorities to submit bids that meet key bid criteria set by the government and which ‘Option C’ doesn’t meet.

The problems with ‘Option C’ include:

• * The proposal for six secondary schools. A successful bid could only support a building programme for five secondary schools.
• * School sizes that are incompatible with the best educational outcomes. National evidence suggests the optimum school size for GCSEs is 1,000 to 1,200 places.
• * An 11-16 school on the Limehurst High School site. This site is not large enough to support an 11-16 school within the national BSF bid criteria.
• * The creation of too many surplus places. This is in breach of the national BSF bid criteria.

The consequence of supporting ‘Option C’ is that the county council could end up submitting a bid that does not meet the BSF bid criteria and which would therefore be rejected by the government at national level. This would mean throwing away a one-off opportunity to unlock £80m of investment and transform learning in Loughborough, Quorn and Barrow. If the only consultation responses the county council receives, however well-intentioned, say ‘Option C’ then the bid will be undermined and will, in all likelihood, fail.

I personally support a viable bid for the £80m of investment to transform education in Loughborough, which is why I support ‘Option A’. (This is my personal view.)

The parent-led One Through School campaign (which advocates for 11-16 education) has taken a positive approach to the BSF bid and those who want to engage in the consultation response in an informed way will find the One Through School website and One Through School Facebook group helpful.

Now is the time for those of us who want to see education in Loughborough transformed with new buildings, new equipment, new schools and a common sense 11-16 / 11-19 system to make our voices heard by submitting positive responses to the county council’s consultation – and by being bold enough to support either ‘Option A’ or ‘Option B’ so that Loughborough, Quorn and Barrow have the best possible chance of succeeding in the BSF bid.

Please take a moment to fill in the consultation response form now – there are only two questions and it takes literally less than two minutes to register a positive vote in favour of unlocking £80m of investment that will benefit people in Loughborough, Quorn and Barrow for decades to come.

On Monday (25 January 2010) Loughborough MP Andy Reed brought up the issue of Loughborough schools reorganisation and Building Schools for the Future (BSF) in Parliament in a question to the Minister of State for Schools and Learners Vernon Coaker:

Mr. Andy Reed: My hon. Friend will know that, in Leicestershire, the county council proposes to close two out of three secondary schools. Does he agree that closing an outstanding secondary school would be a big mistake, and that, in trying to ensure that it is possible to deliver in a town the size of Loughborough, greater collaboration – not necessarily the removal of heads – and the sharing of best practice by schools is the best way to deliver education for 11 to 14-year-olds?

Mr. Coaker: As my hon. Friend knows, school organisation and the commissioning of school places is a matter for the local authority. It is a matter of great concern to hear that in Loughborough one of the proposals is the closure of an outstanding school. That would require detailed attention. He will need to work, as he is no doubt doing, with the local authority and the local community to see what can be done about it.

Clearly Parliament wasn’t the right forum to discuss a decision that will be taken locally. It is unfair of Mr Reed to expect the minister to (i) be at once familiar with local issues in any given part of the country, (ii) express views on proposals the minister hasn’t researched or been briefed about and (iii) be drawn into intervening in the decision of local people.

A more effective way to act on schools reorganisation in Loughborough is to respond to the county council’s online consultation.

The Conservatives draft manifesto on education was launched yesterday.

The key planks of the draft manifesto are:

• * Better teachers and tougher discipline
• * A rigorous curriculum and exam system
• * Giving every parent access to a good school

The part of the draft education manifesto that grabbed the media’s attention was David Cameron’s promise to make teaching “brazenly elitist” by raising entry standards into the teaching profession and making it easier for people with experience in other jobs to move into teaching later.

As with the launch of the Conservatives draft health manifesto just a couple of weeks ago, the education manifesto is now part of an online consultation process which culminates in a live webcast with David Cameron this Friday. The online consultation for the health manifesto was hugely successful – with over 40,000 votes on which questions David Cameron should answer.

Download the draft education manifesto
Pose a question for David Cameron and vote on other people’s questions

I am grateful to Simon Ghent of OneThroughSchool (OTS) for his response to my blog post last week about Leicestershire County Council’s Building Schools for the Future (BSF) bid.

Simon writes:

For clarification

The OTS team welcomes the consultation by LCC. We welcome the opportunity to bid for reform and the chance to get £80 million of BSF funding which we consider will deliver real benefits to our children’s education.

We also recognise that a credible third option would be required by those wishing to save Limehurst and Garendon School. We have already made representation regarding retaining Garendon although we need to do more research on the legal implications of our preferred choice in this regard.

We do not believe retaining Burleigh is in anyones interest and nor is the creation (using option b) of a super school in the interests of educational achievement in Loughborough. OTS also realises the passion and the genuine concern of parents in the Limehurst area.

Although we do not want the bid to be derailed we are happy to be work with all stakeholders who can take advantage of OTS’s three years of expertise and knowledge in campaigning for reform. We believe that a credible third option can be made however time is very short and coordinated action is required quickly. Lastly we do not believe such a important issue should be hijacked by partisan groups or political parties and we continue to take a dim view of anyone trying to make political gain from this issue.

The situation currently is largely due to the BSF framework and the county council should not be blamed for complying with this however we hope that any credible plan proposed is listened to and the will of parents is recognised.

Simon makes the point that “we [OTS] do not believe such a important issue should be hijacked by partisan groups or political parties and we continue to take a dim view of anyone trying to make political gain from this issue”.

This is fair point and there is an in-built cross-party aspect to BSF – it’s a national Labour government programme with a bid being proposed by a Conservative county council.

Unfortunately I believe Loughborough MP Andy Reed has already tried to make BSF and Loughborough schools reorganisation a party political issue. In the middle of 2009, Mr Reed was boasting about BSF being a Labour scheme, he also claimed that he had used his position as a Labour MP to convince the Government to “bring forward” BSF in Leicestershire. Then in late 2009 Mr Reed (incorrectly) claimed that the Conservative county council had failed in its BSF bid (in fact, no bid had been prepared at that stage) – something that Mr Reed seemed to strangely delight in.

When Mr Reed writes about BSF in press releases and on his website he talks about the “Labour government” and the “Tory county council”. When I write about BSF I talk about the “government” and the “county council”.

Prospective Conservative MP for Loughborough Nicky Morgan has written about BSF:

As one of several politicians here in Loughborough faced with a imminent General Election, it’s tempting to jump on bandwagons and reduce everything to election soundbites. I won’t do it.

* My first priority is for us to get the funding needed for change.

* My second priority has to be to look at the whole picture for Loughborough, Quorn & Barrow. Each proposal relates to the others. Remove one part of the jigsaw, and it will fall apart.

* My third priority is to ensure each change which is proposed can be properly justified and genuinely accounted for. Nothing must simply be a matter of ‘adminstrative convenience’. The public must question the Country Council Officers thoroughly. I will be doing that.

Nicky is meeting Leicestershire County Council’s Director of Education later this week to discuss the proposed reorganisation of schools in Loughborough. Level heads must prevail on this issue.

Leicestershire County Council is pushing ahead with its bid for £80m of government funding through the “Building Schools for the Future” (“BSF”) programme which will shake up education in Loughborough. The county council’s consultation options both include closing Burleigh Community College, Garendon High School and Limehurst High School. Whilst it is understandable that many pupils, parents and teachers at the schools proposed for closure will be apprehensive about major changes, the county council’s bid must be looked at as a unique opportunity to modernise and improve education in Loughborough.

Leicestershire teachers that I have spoken to about the county’s education system seem to agree that the current three-school system, which is alien to many parts of the country, is not optimal for children’s education and that it creates unnecessary costs – money that could otherwise be spent on better education resources with a direct benefit for pupils.

Attempts by campaigners (including Loughborough’s current MP) to slow down or derail the County Council’s BSF bid because of a personal preference for particular schools present a real risk to the vital £80m of funding the County Council needs in order to reform and improve education in Loughborough. This is not an opportunity that will come again.

Page 4 of tomorrow’s Loughborough Echo (15 January 2010) has a good summary of the recent events surrounding the BSF bid along with commentary from the affected schools and other interested parties. I think it’s useful to look at where different schools stand on the bid proposals:

• * De Lisle Catholic Science College – welcomes the proposals
• * Garendon High School – “shocked” by the proposals
• * Burleigh Community College – sees a fantastic opportunity
• * Limehurst High School – “extremely concerned”
• * Humphrey Perkins Community College – embraces the proposals
• * Rawlins Community College – welcomes the proposals
• * Woodbrook Vale High School – welcomes the “considerable opportunity”
• * Loughborough University – “pleased be involved”

It is pleasing to see so many schools recognising and welcoming the BSF proposals. Leicestershire County Council is undertaking a consultation with the option of submitting an online response, as well as holding a series of public meetings (meeting details on the consultation link).

The “OneThroughSchool” campaign is supporting the County Council’s bid.

I personally wish the bid every success.