On Thursday 19 March 2008 Seamus Murphy and Peter Campling presented reasons why decanting children from the lower school into eight temporary buildings on the playground at the upper school would be beneficial. These are in the slides attached as a pdf (link opens new window).
The main points were that the school had identified four principles that would guide it in its decisions. Parents welcomed these and discussed adding to them and adding more detail.
The four principles were:
- No compromise on teaching and learning space.
- No compromise to ratio/quality of other areas of provision – canteen, toilets, enrichment programmes etc.
- Year 7 and 8 to remain separate (to be achieved through having dedicated Year 7 & 8 areas)
- Separation and overcrowding out of lesson time to be avoided through staggering the times of the school day and having dedicated Year 7 and 8 recreational areas
The parents’ forum responded with the following:
We liked your four principles and want to be reassured that you will be monitoring performance against them consistently.
An additional principle must be that the current pupils who will never move into the new school, and those who will only benefit at the margins or for a very short period of time, must feel at least as special as those pupils who will benefit from the new school. There must be no feelings that they are being overlooked or sacrificed for the benefit of future pupils.
Specific suggestions include:
A “Last of the Old School” campaign/ethos to make the pupils at the old school feel special. The campaign should set the standards the new school has to strive to maintain – perhaps through a yearbook, special event, an Old School logo or even a tie?
Maintenance of the school to be kept to a high standard and even improved. The school must not be allowed to be run down just because it is to be knocked down after the pupils have left.
Quiet places for pupils of both parts of the school to be maintained so that those who wish to can read and reflect in their break times.
Minimum disruption from staggered breaks for those still in the classroom.
Examine how having less space will cause more of the older pupils to go off site, possibly getting back late for lessons, or getting into trouble outside of school.
Extra curricular activities, school trips and after school clubs etc to be continued and even enhanced.
There is no point decanting early if building work cannot start at once. The principle must be that the pupils are decanted for the shortest possible time as disruption is inevitable.
Similarly, if the pupils are decanted, the contract with the builders must bring the completion deadline forward by at least nine months (The builders claimed almost a year, so this is a reasonable fall back position).
That does not mean necessarily starting any earlier. The council has confirmed that the planned operational date has always been 1 September 2012, not April 2013 the builders mentioned, so the builders are only bringing it forward by three months if they make it operational on 1 June 2012 (I think they may have been over-egging the benefits of the decant in terms of time).
Also, is it really convenient to move in and end the decant in June? Would this not be disruptive to the pupils studying for GCSEs? Is it not better to move during the summer holidays for the September 2012 start date, after the GCSEs have been completed?
We are not flat against an earlier completion, just concerned that it is not disruptive. As the school will be completely new with new furniture, it may be possible to move to the new school in June (or earlier if the builders really can save a year) because, in theory, only the pupils and the teaching materials have to be moved – no desks, chairs or even cupboards.
But experience at Sedgehill suggests the staff will all want to bring some things with them that will then have to be found a home, will break the building’s heat and environmental standards and clutter the place. We just want to be assured that all this has been considered.
