Appendix 1
The Moorside High School – Governing Body Consultation Meeting
Monday 13 September 2010, 6:10pm
In Attendance
Nick Page
Jon Stonehouse
Paul Makin
Sue Lightup
Mike Hall
Craig Monaghan
Pauline Singh
Chris Mee
Cathy Starbuck
Helen Nicolle
Fran Wright
Richard Milton
Bernie Tomlinson
Andy Coupe
Kathryn Mildenstein
Paula Flynn
Acting Strategic Director, Children’s
Services
Acting Deputy Director, Children’s
Services
Acting Assistant Director, Children’s
Services
Strategic Director, Community Health
Lead for Every Child Matters, BSF
Technical Manager, BSF
Procurement Manager, BSF
Group Accountant, BSF/PFI
Advisor for School Improvement
Principal Officer, School Admissions
Senior Officer, School Admissions
Head of Service, MAPAS
Senior Youth Worker, Deans Activity
Centre
LEP
Asset Planning Manager
Asset Planning Officer (Minute taker)
Governors in Attendance
Nigel Ogden
Professor Mark Gabbay
Joanna Dwyer
Fiona Stanley
Councillor John Ferguson
Pam Castle
Carol Elsey
Ian Jarvey
Charles Howard
Sarah Cooke
Headteacher
Vice Chair
Staff Governor
Parent Governor
LA Governor
Community Governor
Parent Governor
Parent Governor
Staff Governor
Staff Member
Apologies were received from John Allen, Ian Shaw, Brian Pearson and
Julia MacLean.
Nick Page opened the meeting, thanked the governing body for attending and
introduced the representatives from Children’s Services. Sue Lightup,
Strategic Director of Community Health chairs the meeting.
Nick re-iterated the process that the LA had gone through last year and
explained that the proposal had been withdrawn following the decision by the
Appendix 1
Independent Adjudicator on the St Georges RC High School proposal. This
led to the LA having to review the whole BSF programme.
The purpose of this meeting therefore is to discuss the revised proposal and
record all view/questions and comments raised which will be reported to
cabinet.
Since halting the proposal last year the LA have been looking at various
options and in particular, how to improve the proposal better. The proposal
therefore is to close both Moorside and The Swinton High Schools and
replace with a new 1350 place High School which will accommodate a locality
learning support unit, the Dean’s activity centre and also provide a base for
MAPAS. The site will be enlarged to include the existing site at Moorside
High School. This will ensure the site is big enough for possible future
expansion and will provide more than adequate space for the playing fields.
The LA have now also secured funding to re-build Moorside Primary School
and the proposal is to build this alongside the new high school.
Questions and Answers
Q. As a governor but also a parent whose child attends this school and will be
in her final year in 2013, I am concerned about the disruption that this
proposal will cause to her education. What measures will be put in place to
protect children’s education?
A. This will be a challenge and is something that would have to be managed
by the temporary governing body, the headteacher and the schools senior
leadership team.
Comment - This school has excellent pastoral care and I don’t think the new
school will have this.
Q. We are looking at two sets of children from two different schools, there will
be things such as rivalry, pupils sitting their GCSE’s when the new school
opens.
A. I agree this is a genuine concern and having led on school
closures/openings in the past it is vital that there are clear internal
relationships and that pastoral care is maintained. We need to look at
methods how this can be achieved and will need to look at developing a
process of working with all groups i.e. parents/carers, pupils, staff etc. There
are always going to be risks with anything that involves change, but it’s about
finding a way of working with change and ensuring that we work closely with
all involved.
Appendix 1
Q. This is a short time scale to bring together two large high schools that have
quite different ethos. It’s not just those pupils who will be in the GCSE year
that could be affected, KS4 could also be affected badly, particularly when
you have staff that know that they now have to fight for their jobs.
As a governor I am concerned about how this can be managed and whilst you
say you have experience of managing this, we don’t know the success rate.
All services are going to be disrupted and it will be a tall order to try and
minimise the impact in only 2 yrs. It seems that there is a lot of disadvantages
to this proposal and I am not convinced or seen evidence to see how this can
work successfully.
No other option has been offered to us and the feasibility study details that
you have shared with the governing body recently was very brief. None of the
options are for Moorside High to remain open. The governing body in the
past have suggested the possibility of looking at Moorside and St Ambrose
Barlow coming together, yet this not one of the options shown on the
feasibility study.
A. One of the options considered has been for Moorside to stay open and The
Swinton to close. In terms of the options study, we looked at many and
discussed these details with many stakeholders, including the Diocese.
Mike added that to share all the options considered would be very difficult and
some of the initial options were rejected early on as they may have involved
the need to involve CPO’s of surrounding properties based on the fact that
sites were not big enough, or the site wasn’t located in a central area to where
the current pupils reside etc. We still however feel that this current proposal is
the best option.
In terms of co-locating schools, this would not be a feasible option as it would
not be good value for money. We don’t have a site big enough. If the
governing body however think we have missed an option that could be
considered then the LA will explore it.
Q. What were the views of the staff and governing body at The Swinton High
School?
A. The governing body and staff do not support the proposal and the majority
of parents who attended the consultation meeting were also against the
proposal. The school has also carried out a survey with pupils and results
show that majority are not in favour.
Q. Our view also is that we don’t want a new school.
A. It’s not enough just to say you don’t want a new school, there has to be a
workable Plan B. To reiterate, if you have an idea that you think should be
considered please let us know.
Appendix 1
Comment - We think the 3 -19 yrs option needs to be looked at in more
detail. No conversations around this have been shared with the governing
body. As a governing body we need more time to manage this.
Q. This building is an old building, is it feasible to modernise the building to
make it fit for a school of the future? Also as a governor of this school and
also a local Councillor, whilst I sympathise with parents, I do feel we have to
think of future pupils. This is a good school but we have to look at change.
A. If we used the funding to update the building we would not see anything
new in terms of teaching. Even then there would be no guarantee we could
make the building fully DDA compliant. We would also have to look at
undertaking works over a phased period causing significant disruption to the
life of the school.
Comment - It seems to me that this it is a forgone conclusion, that the new
school will go ahead, yet we have not been given a Plan B.
Q. I think we need to know more about the plan, for example, how the
governing body will be brought together. We would also like to add that the
leadership at both schools is outstanding yet you are prepared to scrap this
and bring in something completely different.
A. Both schools are good schools with good leadership and we don’t want to
lose that, so we need to look at ways how this can work and we are very clear
and committed about that. The temporary governing body will have the same
statutory powers as any governing body and therefore they can develop any
model that they want that’s within the law. This would be a real genuine task
for governors but as the LA we would work and support you. It’s about
working in partnership and building on the existing level of expertise, rather
than losing it.
Comment - Shiny buildings do not make a good school.
Q. As I see it there are two possible outcomes of this process; either the
current proposal goes ahead, or we are given the opportunity to influence to
what extent the proposal can be changed, prior to the LA reporting to cabinet.
What is the mechanism for this? Or are we at the stage where if this proposal
does not go head then there is no other plan available?
A. It would be correct to say that we are at the end of the road in terms of the
programme and the timescale for reporting to Cabinet. We are lucky that we
have managed to keep hold of the funding.
Q. So if we wanted to explore other options for Cabinet to consider, how
would we do this?
A. To put this into context, we have been discussing the BSF proposals since
2006 and undertook citywide consultation with schools, including this school
Appendix 1
and at no point in the last 4 yrs has anyone come forward with a suggestion of
another workable option.
We also need to keep in mind that the 6 wk consultation period is part of the
statutory time frame and therefore once the 6 week period expires we are
required to report to Cabinet, with the outcome of the consultation.
Councillor Ferguson - I would just like to add that we are very fortunate to
be in this position and one of my concerns is that we could lose funding if we
don’t go forward.
The meeting ended at 7pm. Nick page thanked the governing body for
attending the meeting and their input.