3000 Signatures to Surrey Council which say “Don’t Close Shortwood”

 

On March the 18th members of the committee to protect the wonderful 125 year old Shortwood Infant school went to the Surrey council offices on the eve of the council consultation on the fate of the school.

Mark Burton – School Place Planning Manager for Surrey Council was given a box, which from his surprised expression may have been considerably more than than he was expecting.

A box, however, was what was needed to contain the community feedback from the growing awareness of the councils plans for this small infant school in the nothern Staines area.

Inside the box were, images, letters, a DVD, news articles and  3000 signatures – some of them in the form of a digital petition, but the vast majority in in the form of full replies to the consultation, using the councils own reply forms. 

2000 individuals had taken the time to write their views of the closure and demand that the council properly reconsider its proposal. This is a significant achevement for a school with places for 80 students, plus a further 40 from the associated playbox nursey group which will also be severely impacted if the closure goes ahead.

This many signatures, taken as a percentage of the local community population is very significant. 90,000 people are on the Spelthorn electoral role, perhaps 20,000 in northern Staines. This in mind, 3000 petitioners represents a full 15% of the total population of that area – and this support acheived after only a month since the beginning of the consultation.

More than anything, however, this indicates that the school occupies a greater worth to the northern Staines community than understood by the council.

This may be due to the demonstratable lack of other viable educational alternatives in the area or possibly a fightback to the loss of services in this community which has seen proposals to have its hospitals and firestations closed – and now its schools.

The Surrey Council should take note that closure of services, in this case schools, should be conducted with appropriate consideration of future growth in the area, proper attention to the statuatory rights of parents to have the education provisions that they need, and with evaluation undertaken under the specified consultation guidelines and on appropriately accurate data.

The council needs to be fully aware of the implications of closing proven, well performing and effective services in Surrey’s most deprived areas.

So far the councils performance has not been good.

• The proposal to close the school went ahead without any prior warning that the school was under threat.
• The consultation was called when school applications had closed making it impossible for the school to redress any enrolment shortfall.
• The consultation was not advertised – a legal requirement
• That council have provided inaccurate data regarding suitable alternative schools in the area.
• Alternative schools in the area are not as well rated by ofsted, are faith schools, or are oversubscribed
• The council has failed to consider the fate of Playbox and its 40 children which have no other venue.
• The council members who have attended the meeting have repeatedly been unable to satisfactorily address parental questions or concerns.
• The council have inadequately considered the implications of travelling to alternative schools for transport restrictions, safety concerns, green agenda, and additional expenses to parents.
• The council provided inaccurate birth and growth data, and provided this information too late to be of use to the committee despite constant pressure.
• The council have inaccurately overrepresented the cost of small schools and have not made a convincing case for closing a historically viable 125 year old established school in a growing community in an area where the bulk of ofsted approved schools are already oversubscribed.
• They have not paid attention to the historical significance of the school as the oldest building in Staines which is still being used for the purpose for which is was build.
• They have not acknowledged the importance of the school as a safehaven alternative for vulnerable, bullied, and assited learning children.
• They have asserted that smaller schools are less effective in providing learning opportunities, whereas most research shows the opposite.
• The council has not answered the committee on how it expects that the closure of will benefit the area if new school facilites need to be built to mitigate the existing shortfall of school places.

These failings seem to indicate a disturbing undercurrent of collusion and conspiracy around the fate of the school – a feeling which is only enhanced by the tight lipped attitude of Council members involved with the decision making process.

It may be that the Council is not attempting to consult with the community at all, and that the decision has already been made in the dealing dark corners of the Council chambers. That this consultation is, in fact, a sham designed to retain some traction with the voters of this community.

The most damning evidence that this is likely is the Surrey County Council’s record of having closed 9 schools in 9 years – all of them infant schools.

Advertisement