Education slams PTA in letter to its staff
Friday 23rd January 2009, 11:30AM GMT.
Education minister Carol Steere and chief executive Derek Neale.
EDUCATION has hit out at the St Andrew’s School PTA’s campaign to keep it open in a letter sent to department staff.
A copy of it has been obtained by the Guernsey Press, but some believe it paints a confusing picture when compared to statements in the States report in which the department recommends the school stays open.
The PTA has been warning about the effect on other schools if St Andrew’s were to be closed.
In the letter, Education said: ‘The department would not seek to transfer existing pupils between schools and following the trend of reducing pupil numbers it may well be the case that pupils could be absorbed into other schools without the need to redraw catchment areas – as indicated in the States report.
‘If there was a need to redraw catchment areas this would take time and the department does not see this as a possibility for the foreseeable future.’
But this does not sit easily with the conclusion of its report before the States, according to Deputy Jane Stephens.
‘There is clear reference in the policy letter to the need to redraw the catchment areas of the Castel, Forest and St Martin’s, Forest schools and La Houguette, Vauvert and La Mare de Carteret primaries will all be affected if schools close,’ she said.
- To read Guernsey Press stories in full click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
Island Life
All about Guernsey
Ambassador of the Year 2011
History & Heritage
Visitor Information
Guernsey's government
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
Useful Links
Confusion doesn’t run in Education, it gallops.
No doubt the PTA can ask Education to explain the following :
January Billet online version page 105
In the Education department letter of 28 november 2008 setout in the Billet is the following:
“1. Executive Summary
Purpose
1.1 The purpose of this report is to explain the Education Department’s decision to recommend to the States the closure of St. Sampson’s Infant School and to ask the States to note the decision of the Department that St. Andrew’s Primary School should remain open. These decisions follow a process of review started by the then Education Council in 2002″.
The letter speaks of recommending the closure of St Sampson’s Infants, but only asking the Sttaes to NOTE the decision “that St Andrew’s School remain open”.
“Note the decision of the Department” does suggest that the Education decision was seen (by them) as final and merely to be noted and not discussed by the States.
If Education meant the decision to be left to the States, surely it would have been a recommendation, and not “to note the decision of the Department”.
Seems the PTA recall of the controversial meeting has been confirmed in the Education Department’s own letter in the Billet.
Report abuse
Dedicated teachers can teach well in huts, but not if they know they will be kicked out after either their license expires or that their school is forced to close because of dire mismanagement.
Why should they bother coming over? The locals that desire to teach can’t even afford the bloomin boat ride back, let alone somewhere to live.
Parlous.
Report abuse
Just a thought – if they didnt have so many meetings to re-discuss previously decided and re-decided upon issues which will be re-discussed, over and over, again and again, seemingly in an endless cycle; wouldnt they have ample time to redraw the catchment areas?
Hmm i think the department needs a lesson in thinking outside the “hut” – maybe they need another meeting to discuss it.
Report abuse
SJ – Well spotted.
As Deputy Steere said “It would only be put to the States if the recommendation was for closure”.’
It is quite obvious, that was not the case. If it were chess I would say it’s Check Mate, but as it’s politics, you never know what’s next!!
Report abuse
fast robert
local teachrs would not need the boat ride back would they
and yes dedicated teachers can do well in huts but its not where id be happy for my kids to be sent and taught!!!! bout time we caught up with the uk. we may have smaller class sizes but i very much doubt we have higher standards from evidence of my own childrens education
Report abuse
Devil’s Advocate
What’s next indeed. Try this for size.
More sleight of hand from Education in the January Billet
When Education refer to “The furthest distance a child in the St. Sampson’s Infant catchment area to travel to Vale Infants School will be 1.63 miles”, why did they calculate this distance “as the crow flies”?
Why not provide the distances “measured by the nearest available route” as required by law?
Education know full well the law. They set it out on page 123.
“Transport for Pupils
3.44 The Education Law 1970 section 20 subsection 3 defines “walking distance” for
pupils “in relation to a child who has not attained the age of eight years one
mile and in the case of any other child two and one half miles, measured by the nearest available route”.
.
Yet Education provides an unrealistic table that has “as the crow flies based, not on how the law requires, but on how the crow flies.
3.37 This compares with travel distances as the crow flies for children at other primary schools as follows:
Vale Infants/Junior School 1.66 miles
Forest Primary School 3.33 miles
La Houguette Primary School 2.29 miles
[There are others which i have excluded to save space.SJ]
So, why use “as the crow flies” as a means of measuring distance rather than the legally required “measured by the nearest available route”?
Was it because Education were too lazy to provide the required calculations or do the required calculations show a different picture?
DISTANCE,
Report abuse
Stephen
Let’s hope that others actually take note of what you have highlighted.
Deputies – are you reading ?
Guernsey Press Editor – are you reading ?
Deputy Steer and Derek Neale – what do you have to say in response ?
Report abuse
melissa
The ‘boat ride back’ is the boat ride back from Uni and teacher training in the UK. My ‘huts’ was saying that without good teachers, regardless of the teaching environment, not a lot will get achieved.
I was taught in a hut and it was completely contra-indicatory to a satisfying education. Not one kid smiled for years in our form whilst we were couped up in there.
So I agree with you.
Report abuse
David
It’s ironic that an Education Department that based its campaign against the St Andrew’s PTA in the documentation (minutes), finds its own credibility seriously questioned in its own documentation. I refer of course to the Education Report to the States in the January Billet.
The thrust of the Education criticism of the St Andrew’s PTA is that the minutes of a meeting between the PTA and education makes no reference to the claim that Education told the PTA that the decision not to close St Andrew’s School would not be discussed by the States.
The Education Report in the Billet provides a fair amount of evidence that seems to provide credibility to the assertion of the St Sampson’s PTA.
The Executive Summary at the beginning of the report tells the Purpose
Para 1.1 “The purpose of this report is to explain the Education Department’s decision to recommend to the States the closure of St. Sampson’s Infant School and to ask the States to note the decision of the Department that St. Andrew’s Primary School should remain open. These decisions follow a process of review started by the then Education Council in 2002.
[My comment: Apart from the wording containing one recommendation and one to note it is strange that the Education report in the puts a case to the States for the closure of St Sampson’s. Strange there is no case put forward in the narrative for the retention of St Andrew’s School.
Why? Is it because of the words “to note the decision” and the expectation that they would not be required to justify their decision in a States debate. I have been told that the Policy Council advised the Education Department that they ask the States to approve the recommendation in respect of both schools. You have to ask yourself why the Policy Council made this comment.
It is likely that such a request forced a debate on the decision to keep open the St Andrew’s School?
What we know is this advice was heeded as .we see in
6. Recommendations
6.1 The Education Department by a majority therefore recommends the States:
1. to approve the closure of St. Sampson’s Infant School through the
closure model as set out in this report;
2. to approve the Education Department’s decision that St. Andrew’s
Primary School should remain open.
[Signed by the Minister]
Then there is another interesting addition to the original documentation that says:
(NB Following careful consideration of this Report seven Members of the Policy Council do not support proposal 2 (ie to keep St Andrew’s Primary School open), while two Members do support this proposal. The remaining two Members have reserved their views pending the States debate.)
(NB The Treasury and Resources Department has no comment on the proposals.)
Followed by
The States are asked to decide:-
XV.- Whether, after consideration of the Report dated 28th November, 2008, of the Education Department, they are of the opinion:-
1. To approve the closure of St. Sampson’s Infant School through the closure model as set out in that Report.
2. To approve the Education Department’s decision that St. Andrew’s Primary School should remain open”.
If we need any further documentary evidence we can look at para 1.20 that says
“The Board, by a majority, decided to recommend to the States the closure of the last stand-alone infant school, St. Sampson’s Infant School, and the eventual merger of Vale Infants and Junior Schools to become a primary school. This would complete the process of providing a pre-11 system of schooling in which all States school children would be educated in a 4-11 setting. As most of the primary schools would have more than one class per year, it would also allow greater flexibility in how learning could be organised..
[My Comment The wording “This would complete the process of providing a pre-11 system of schooling….” Taken along with that from Para 1.19 “The Board, by a majority, decided it should complete the structural
rationalisation of the States primary schools begun over 20 years previously,,,” seems to provide further confirmation that the retention of St Andrew’s School was as the Executive Summary says for the States to take note of the decision of the Education Department]
The Billet puts forward a case for the closure of St Sampson’s School. That fits comfortably with its intent to recommend. However, there is no case provided to support the decision to keep open St Andrew’s School. Surely, if Education expected a debate on St Andrew’s School, it would have put an argument to support this contentious issue]
All of this provides sound documentary support for the comment of Devil’s Advocate above which is “As Deputy Steere said “It would only be put to the States if the recommendation was for closure”.
Ironic isn’t it that Education tried to destroy the claims of the PTA by referring to the documents (minutes of meeting), and now their own case is being demolished by reference to their own documentation.
This seems probable when we reflect on the wording of the Executive Summary, and the very different wording in the concluding recommendations at the end of the report.
The evidence in the form of the Education Department’s own report in the Billet, shows that St Andrew’s PTA would be justified in seeing the decision to approve the recommendation for St Andrew’s School, as coming after the intervention of the Policy Council.
The PTA would also be justified in believing the recommendations that appear in the Billet, to be a material change from the “asking to note their decision”, as stated in the Executive Summary at the beginning of the document.
Report abuse
When the department speaks of absorbing students into other schools, the use of temporary “huts” should not be taken into account, only the existing permanent facilities.
Members of the Education Department and that of the states are privileged to work in reasonable and permanent surroundings. They may often complain that an office is too small but generally the roof does not leak, the windows fit properly and there is no problem with mould or rot. Why cant our children share the same privilege?
I understand that these huts and cheap to buy and install but they cost more in heating and maintenance to repair. By some of the posts above it seems that many may be over 40 years old and therefore to say that they are economical is complete nonsense.
How can you call these temporary classrooms? Some of these are old enough to house the children and maybe even grandchildren for whom they were built.
What i would like to see is a planned response and plan for removing temporary huts from our schools and replacing them with permanent classrooms. If Guernsey is so affluent an island, why should its schools look like shanty towns? The closure of any school should not proceed until this has been completed and a proper plan put in place. I want to see children and teachers concentrate on the curriculum rather than the construction of substandard buildings.
Report abuse
I must say Stephen John’s in depth review of the facts highlights a serious discrepancy between what Deputy Steere has recently stated.
I am amazed that the GP does not have a political journalist (like James Falla) to investigate these facts and seek a response.
Report abuse
Devils Advocate.
There is sufficient areas of concern in the Education document to merit the throwing out of the whole paper.
The use of “as the crow flies” as means of calculation rather than the legal method of calculation, should make for concern as to the credibility of all the data.
Problem is witrh such a big Billet, will deputies have the time to critically assess document and reject it out of hand.
Report abuse