The Future of the John Roan School...
...once again rears its troubled head.
Debaser says:
Your readers may already have heard that the governing body of the John Roan met on 28 February and voted to move their support ‘in principle’ of the move to the Peninsula to a support ‘in fact’. No doubt the Council, which was represented at the meeting by the customary heavy mob, is already preparing its press statement, but let me just feed you some counter-news.
The governors were given a report from Christine Whatford (be careful to keep the ‘d’ at the end of her name: it’s an easy mistake to make), the acting Director of Children’s Services, which updated governors on the state of play concerning the conditions the governors had laid down in order for their ‘in principle’ agreement to become ‘in fact’. Strangely enough, if there had been movement on some of these publicly stated conditions (and that’s a big ‘if’), none of them had been resolved – not even the gasholder, which the local MP had admitted to being a ‘deal-breaker’.
Despite that, the Council, represented in boring force by its predictable bully boys made it clear to the governing body that, were the move not to go ahead, there was no Plan B for the John Roan. (Let’s just spend a second remembering that the person who coined the expression ‘There is no alternative’ – often abbreviated to TINA – was Margaret Thatcher, a politician clearly more beloved of Greenwich Council than we had thought. They’ve certainly learned more than we’d imagined from her way of operating.) Just in case she hadn’t made this point clearly enough, Ms Whatford stuck around for the governing body debate even though, as an invited speaker, she had no place to be there.
Thus pressured, and with abject support from the chair of governors (a one-time employee of the local MP), the vote was passed 10–5 to support the move of the school to the Peninsula. There wasn’t quite enough time to debate it in full because the deputy chair of governors (David Gardiner) had another meeting to go to, bless him, obviously one that is much more important for a man who is tipped to step into Mr Raynsford’s shoes and whose children were selectively educated (please don’t let him or anyone else query the use of that word ‘selectively’) at Haberdasher’s. In fact – perish the thought – was there ever a possibility that the meeting had been brought forward to the earlier time of 6pm in order to facilitate his attendance at this second meeting? Let’s hope not: that would be to question the integrity of our chair and deputy chair too far, surely.
Argue it as it might, the Council has sold the school, its pupils, staff and stakeholders almost literally down the river. After one of the Council supporters has attempted to put an opposing position to mine, we’ll be able to give you even more worrying news about the Council’s, designers’ and governing body’s complete failure to consult fully on the impact of the noise pollution on the ASD pupils, one of the apparent jewels in the crown of this new design, soon to be exposed as tawdry tat.
The Phantom is worried.
Tell me. Being ignorant on these matters, I wonder how the Council can sell off land that belongs to the John Roan School, which I always assumed was a charity?
I always get a huge postbag when we come to these discussions - let's keep the gloves on, though, folks...
Debaser says:
Your readers may already have heard that the governing body of the John Roan met on 28 February and voted to move their support ‘in principle’ of the move to the Peninsula to a support ‘in fact’. No doubt the Council, which was represented at the meeting by the customary heavy mob, is already preparing its press statement, but let me just feed you some counter-news.
The governors were given a report from Christine Whatford (be careful to keep the ‘d’ at the end of her name: it’s an easy mistake to make), the acting Director of Children’s Services, which updated governors on the state of play concerning the conditions the governors had laid down in order for their ‘in principle’ agreement to become ‘in fact’. Strangely enough, if there had been movement on some of these publicly stated conditions (and that’s a big ‘if’), none of them had been resolved – not even the gasholder, which the local MP had admitted to being a ‘deal-breaker’.
Despite that, the Council, represented in boring force by its predictable bully boys made it clear to the governing body that, were the move not to go ahead, there was no Plan B for the John Roan. (Let’s just spend a second remembering that the person who coined the expression ‘There is no alternative’ – often abbreviated to TINA – was Margaret Thatcher, a politician clearly more beloved of Greenwich Council than we had thought. They’ve certainly learned more than we’d imagined from her way of operating.) Just in case she hadn’t made this point clearly enough, Ms Whatford stuck around for the governing body debate even though, as an invited speaker, she had no place to be there.
Thus pressured, and with abject support from the chair of governors (a one-time employee of the local MP), the vote was passed 10–5 to support the move of the school to the Peninsula. There wasn’t quite enough time to debate it in full because the deputy chair of governors (David Gardiner) had another meeting to go to, bless him, obviously one that is much more important for a man who is tipped to step into Mr Raynsford’s shoes and whose children were selectively educated (please don’t let him or anyone else query the use of that word ‘selectively’) at Haberdasher’s. In fact – perish the thought – was there ever a possibility that the meeting had been brought forward to the earlier time of 6pm in order to facilitate his attendance at this second meeting? Let’s hope not: that would be to question the integrity of our chair and deputy chair too far, surely.
Argue it as it might, the Council has sold the school, its pupils, staff and stakeholders almost literally down the river. After one of the Council supporters has attempted to put an opposing position to mine, we’ll be able to give you even more worrying news about the Council’s, designers’ and governing body’s complete failure to consult fully on the impact of the noise pollution on the ASD pupils, one of the apparent jewels in the crown of this new design, soon to be exposed as tawdry tat.
The Phantom is worried.
Tell me. Being ignorant on these matters, I wonder how the Council can sell off land that belongs to the John Roan School, which I always assumed was a charity?
I always get a huge postbag when we come to these discussions - let's keep the gloves on, though, folks...
Labels: Debates
posted by The Greenwich Phantom at
08:48
7 Comments:
Hi as a parent of a child at John Roan, I would like to add to there a little bit more to this than the line coming out of the Save John Roan campaign
After being talked through the issues a number of times, most of the parents have resigned ourselves to the move and now want to make a success of the new school. I'm sure everyone would love the school to stay where it is but it just not possible.
1. The school (staff, governors parents and children) want the school to be on one site. At the moment the school is wasting resources on two of everything.
2. The last Ofsted inspection explicitly critised the Wescombe park site as being unfit for purpose.
3. The advice given to the council was that they would not get planning permission to build a larger school on the Maze hill site and the Westcombe park location shows what happens when you build a school constrained by planning controls.
4. To rebuild the school one site would mean closing the school as there is not the space to build temp buildings while the work is going on
5. Moving the school actually moves it closer to the homes of the majority of pupils who come from East Greenwich and Charlton.
Now if the problem was just one of these things then it might be possible to overcome the probelm. BUT if we want to use the New Schools money the risk of delivery must be reduced and if you a One site school the current location just doesn't work.
I do feel sorry for the Foundation - they are in a very difficult position. They own the land the Maze Hill site is built on. The business case to build the new school does require money from the sale the Foundation land, BUT if the school moved the Foundation could not do anything with the old school site land as it can only be used for the purposes of education. What they could do is sell the Maze hill site and use the proceeds to invest in the new site on the Peninsular. But there are risks attached to this. These include the that fact English Partnerships are only offering a 999 lease. There is no doubt a difference in land values. I do not envy the trustee's position. The foundation have said that if the teachers, pupils, governors and parents support the move they would back it.
As parents we are more interesting in fighting the battles we can win such as the gas holder, travel routes and quality of eduction at the new school.
The members of the Save John Roan school are running a successful media campaign but are not getting the support of the majority of parents.
PS Last I heard David Gardener was not chair of the governing body, but one of the vice chairs.
nick
Sorry just to correct one statement - the Business case did NOT include the money raised by the Maze hill land sale
Troublebrother makes some valid points.
Points not made, however, would include the fact that the Council NEVER looked at redeveloping on the existing site. If somebody could point to a study that proved redevelopment would not be possible that would be something... but the Council never tried. In fact, parents were told by one Council officer that the business case (such as it is) was constructed to justify a move to the Peninsula. It was not a study to see what would be best for education.
The Outline Business Case (such as it is) for the move also estimated that it would be around £5million cheaper to rebuild on the existing site, and that a school would have lower running costs there. But, again, that was never pursued.
The Masterplan for the Peninsula, the one that the Council approved for development down there, specified the building of a NEW school of more than 13,000 square metres. What has happened, behind the scenes and never justified, is that we're getting an existing school moved 7,000 square metre site. So, compared to the Masterplan, we end up losing one school, and instead of 39,000 square metres of educational land (i.e. 26,000 existing plus 13,000 on the Peninsula) we get 7,000 - a net loss of 32,000 square metres.
The Westcombe Park site WAS criticised, but is getting a couple hundred thousands pounds invested in its refurbishment. That it was in a degraded state was because the Council was withholding maintenance funds for the last many years. In any event, it is expected to pass the next Ofsted.
The whole two site thing is, I think, a red herring. Askes seems to muddle through on a split site. As does Prendergast. One big problem is that the Council asked the school to take on an extra form of entry for a couple of years... many years ago. So, the school IS crowded, and therefore subject to extra wear and tear. And then didn't get maintained to a reasonable standard. Splitting into a lower school/upper school arrangement with the correct 6 forms of entry would ameliorate the situation dramatically.
And, there is space to rebuild in the existing space. Or, even better, build a new school on the Peninsula, decant half the existing John Roan to there while Westcombe Park gets rebuilt, and then move them back. That would work, and would actually deliver what the Council promised.
Also, moving to Peninsula leads to an increased travel distance for most pupils... something like 80% of pupils face a longer commute than they do to the existing site. When the new Charlton school gets built (another Council promise!) East Greenwich and Charlton pupils will be very well served.
I think that the point of the campaign (which, as a parent, I support) is that we shouldn't be "resigning" ourselves to anything. We should be expecting things that were promised, and an approach that respects children and residents. We're getting none of this under the current proposal.
I would like to correct and clarify all of trouble brother's statements with regard to the John Roan school.
1. Having a school on two sites is quite common and many of the most successful local schools operate on a split site (e.g. Haberdasher's, Prendegast and Deptford Green). And the issue is not about existing pupils who, by and large, will have left the school when the time comes to move to the Peninsula. The real concern is from parents with children at existing feeder primary school who will no longer have a local, non-selective secondary school to send their children to.
2. The school is unfit for pupose at the moment because it has had NO capital spend on it in the last 3 years. Just spending 10% of the £36m earmarked for the Peninsula could transform the existing sites.
3. We all know the Council's attitude to planning. If they want something built it happens and if they don't then it doesn't. There are countless examples of this across Greenwich.
4. The Governing Body has not sought any independent professional advice on the practicalities of rebuilding on the existing site. In fact, their position has been to specifically NOT look at alternatives.
5. The new school will be nearer East Greenwich and Charlton but since the Council is also building another school in Charlton within two miles of the Peninsula school then the question still remains....what happens to the current catchment?
The Council has until May to resolve these (and many other) issues. If it doesn't then all 5 schools in this BSF programme lose their money. This is very likely to happen and the Governing Body has been negligent in not looking at contingency options for the future of the school.
The Foundation have plenty of options on what to do with their site. They could build an Academy school, an adult education centre, a primary school...in fact, anything educational. What troublebrother has failed to mention is the fact that the Council are taking legal action against the Foundation (an independent charity) to make the claim that they have no rights over the future of their own assets.
Nick states "most of the parents have resigned ourselves" to the move. The John Roan Campaign simply believes that resigning future children to a 5 storey building with no outside space, a small playground surrounded on three sides by 8 storey commercial buildings and placed in one of the most polluted places in London is not an option.
I must say that I'm with Trouble brother. The campaign - which I did have some sympathy for - seems to have lost the plot a bit. They are becoming more and more strident on the issue and as a parent I find that depressing. It is also depressing that the campaign now never misses the chance to rubbish the future of the school. I have come to the view that the move is now what the school needs and sooner the better. My son at the schools - and his friends - see a great deal of pluses from the move. I have also met a number of the Governors at various meetings and they seem a very dedicated bunch so talk of selling everyone down the river is a bit sad
I must say that I'm with Trouble brother. The campaign - which I did have some sympathy for - seems to have lost the plot a bit. They are becoming more and more strident on the issue and as a parent I find that depressing. It is also depressing that the campaign now never misses the chance to rubbish the future of the school. I have come to the view that the move is now what the school needs and sooner the better. My son at the schools - and his friends - see a great deal of pluses from the move. I have also met a number of the Governors at various meetings and they seem a very dedicated bunch so talk of selling everyone down the river is a bit sad
I don't see that the campaign is getting more "strident"... it's just that they haven't resigned themselves to the Council's scheming.
It's likely, by the way, that kids currently at John Roan will not be at the Peninsula school for very long, if indeed ever. The new school probably won't appear until 2011. And I think there's a good chance it will take longer than that. With the Olympics coming, I think we can expect to see a lot of construction workers and their machines pulled off of things like schools in a last minute rush to finish that infrastructure.
I sympathise with the kids who are looking for a move - why not a nice new modern school? But the last they heard was that there were going to be escalators (not true), lockers (maybe), and so forth. So, even if they do move, their expectations are not going to be met.
I predict that the school that gets built on the Peninsula will be lacking in many ways: it finishes last in the first phase of BSF in Greenwich... so expect cost overruns from the first four schools to be mostly borne by the Peninsula school.
I still think that that the school could be rebuilt on the existing site, and the only thing that is preventing that is Council hubris and greed.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home