Save Middle Schools – The Blog

Today Bedford Borough released a statement confirming they were scrapping plans to change to two-tier education. You can read about it here.

It is now imperative that David Sawyer (the portfolio holder for Education) ensures that we are not embroiled in the same skirmishes in 3,4,5 years’ time. It is now time to repair the damage done to our education system by ill-conceived and poorly executed change, to encourage further co-operation between schools across the tiers, and to give teachers a clear message that their careers are safe in middle schools.

The very first thing David should do, of course, is to re-open Woodside Middle School, rather than send Years 7 and 8 to sit in portacabins on the Mark Rutherford site.

This is the time to commit to teaching and learning in our current system for the next 20-30 years. You never know, in the meantime the rest of the country might realise just what they have been missing…

Stop Press: Wed 14th July. The Mayor said at the Full Council meeting tonight that the closure notices on schools would be rescinded “by the end of term”.

Stop Press 2: Fri 16th July. The Council have now said there needs to be a statutory consultation period for 6 weeks before revoking the closure notices…(so the left-hand doesn’t appear to know what the right-hand is doing)…confidence-inspiring stuff indeed…

Yesterday in the House of Commons Michael Gove announced that only schools that had achieved “financial closure” would receive the BSF funds they were bidding for. MPs seemed confused by what “financial closure” actually was, but I can’t say I blame them as it is metastage 7, stage 9 of BSF according to PfS (or something equally bureaucratic). Michael Gove brought an example of some of the documents needed to be submitted during part of one of the 9 metastages, but I think he hurt his back in the process. Toby Young describes the inefficiencies of BSF further here.

Sadly, the bottom line for Bedford Borough is that, to quote a now infamous line “There is no money left”. The exception is Bedford Academy which has been listed as “under discussion”.

Without substantial BSF funding we would be risking our whole education system by attempting wholesale structural change – we were told repeatedly during the consultation process that Bedford Borough would be different, that the money did exist, and we would not make the same mistakes as Northampton and Suffolk.

There is no popular or political mandate for change without BSF funding – the whole project should now be halted and reversed by a vote of Full Council. In a time of austerity and with local authorities fragmenting as schools chase the money available to academies, the pendulum has swung away from centralised control, and with such uncertainty hanging over everybody, our children (and teachers!) deserve an education undamaged by unfunded, chaotic change.

BSF is now officially under the coalition’s autumn spending review. Many articles have been published across the country in local newspapers and in professional journals (for industries with a vested interest such as teachers, construction companies, architects, quangos)…

You can read them by going to Google News and searching for “Building Schools for the Future”

Official word is not expected about Bedford Borough’s BSF bid until later in the year, but unofficially aside from the Academy it is dead in the water…at the moment…

Update: A joint press release from Alistair Burt, Richard Fuller and Nadine Dorries has said that they are seeking urgent clarification from both the Government and the local council on the future of the Building Schools for the Future programme following the change of government.

Alistair Burt said “We are well aware of the concern of parents about the future of the local schools programme. The Council took its decision to move from three-tier to two-tier based partly on assurances about finance, which were always likely to be up for reconsideration bearing in mind the economic situation of the country at the time promises were made, and the recent election. We believe that the Council needs to know precisely what the national financial picture is before it can take a view as to whether or not its programme will continue in its entirety, be dropped, or proceed with some other approach.”

Bedford MP Richard Fuller said “We all want our best for the schools, but we have all known for some considerable time that the promises previously made were unlikely to have had a firm foundation and it is essential that the matter is revisited as soon as possible in the light of the most up to date financial information”.

From time to time we will add links to relevant news stories, feel free to comment…

14 Nov 2009 – Recession to change school design

18 Nov 2009 – Children get a legal right to a good education

20 Nov 2009 – Budget deficit increasing at £3Bn a week

20 Nov 2009 – Tories will savage BSF

1 Dec 2009 – BSF Contract Fears

16 Dec 2009 – Suffolk school shake-up delayed until 2017

7 Feb 2010 – Headteachers say Labour’s £1bn cuts will ‘decapitate’ schools

(PS – This blog received 2000 hits in 24 hours after the vote)

In a packed Corn Exchange last night the council voted 19-17 to support the officers’ recommendations, hardly a ringing endorsement of a change that will affect a generation of schoolchildren.

Many councillors spoke on both sides of the debate, some more eloquently than others, but all were passionate about what they believed to be in the best interests of the future schoolchildren of Bedford Borough. Michael Headley spoke particularly well on the potential financial implications, and other notable contributions were made by the three group leaders – Carole Ellis, Nick Charsley and Sue Oliver. Apu Bagchi, Doug McMurdo, Tom Wootton, Carl Meader and Tim Hill also made speeches giving detailed resons why retention and improvement of the current system was preferable to a financially unviable change.

The number of speeches given by the two-tier side was equally impressive, although their content failed to live up to their headline billing. Charles Royden’s impression of David Brent though, was given an appropriate reception by the audience.

However, amidst the pantomime atmosphere, it was made clear by the Mayor that if the BSF money doesn’t materialise, then this won’t go ahead. So, whilst the fat lady is warbling happily away, she ain’t finished singing yet.

All of us in SMS still firmly believe that this is the wrong decision for both educational and financial reasons – and we will post blogs when more news of relevance occurs in the future – but for now…we’re taking a rest…

To the councillors who voted for THREE tier, many thanks for all your hard work on our behalf:

Michael Headley (Putnoe)
Tom Wootton (Roxton)
Doug McMurdo (Sharnbrook)
Carole Ellis (Great Barford)
Sue Oliver (Cauldwell)
Nick Charsley (Harrold)
Apu Bagchi (Castle)
Ray Oliver (Kempston North)
Will Hunt (Kempston South)
Sallyanne Smith (Putnoe)
Mark Smith (Turvey)
Mohammad Yasin (Queens Park)
Carl Meader (Kempston South)
Tim Hill (Wootton)
Judith Cunningham (Wootton)
Ian Clifton (Riseley)
Jim Brandon (Carlton)

Those councillors who voted for TWO tier are:

Dave Hodgson (Mayor)
Charles Royden (Brickhill)
Wendy Rider (Brickhill)
Roger Rigby (Bromham)
Roger Gwynne-Jones (Bromham)
Nicky Attenborough (Kempston East)
Colleen Atkins (Harpur)
David Sawyer (De Parys)
Randolph Charles (Cauldwell)
Margaret Davey (Castle)
Brian Dillingham (Harpur)
Anita Gerard (Kingsbrook)
Sylvia Gillard (Goldington)
Phil Merryman (Goldington)
Sarah-Jayne Holland (Eastcotts)
Barry Huckle (Wilshamstead)
John Mingay (Newnham)
Pat Olney (Oakley)
Jane Walker (Clapham)

Tonight councillors will vote on the proposals to change our schools system. Some of them have read the report and found the holes in the educational and financial arguments. All of them are aware of the strength of opinion of parents against change.

What is clear now is that councillors do not need to support three tier education to vote against this proposal – they are voting for or against this particular implementation plan.

Where the plan fails desperately to convince is on primary finance. As the public sector moves towards times of austerity, we are going to spend every last penny from education budgets on ideological change rather than teaching and learning. The irony is that even then we won’t have sufficient money to effect the change successfully.

We know what happens when underfunded change occurs – the number of underperforming schools in Northampton demonstrates this very clearly.

We know that the Conservative administration of Suffolk County Council is so worried that BSF funding will be reduced or scrapped after the next election that they have stopped in the middle of their change from three-tier to two-tier.

We also know that the vote tonight will be very close, so close that it may be decided on the casting vote.

We can only hope that sufficient councillors have decided that the report cannot be implemented without creating financial chaos in Bedford Borough’s schools.

Full Council will vote on Monday night whether to support the officers’ recommendations and change Bedford Borough’s school system to a primary-secondary structure (6:30pm in the Corn Exchange and we’d be delighted to see you there).

SMS has campaigned for the past (nearly) 200 days against this proposal, from the biased consultation process, through the turmoil of a Mayoral election, and to the publication of a lengthy and flawed report.

In addition to educational research, many of us have learned much about democracy, bureaucracy and politics. Much of what we have learned has not been attractive, but we have all cemented new friendships in a common cause in which we all firmly believe.

The public have never wanted this change. Two-thirds of parents were against change in the public consultation, despite this being one-sided, biased and misleading. We collected 9000 signatures on petitions up to September. The two online petitions have 1130 signatories pro three-tier and 165 pro two-tier. Furthermore, 60% of first round votes in the Mayoral election were cast for pro three-tier candidates. If there were a referendum tomorrow, three-tier would easily carry the day.

If the decision is made in favour of change on Monday, it will cause untold disruption for a generation of children, and put Bedford’s education system back 20-30 years in the primary sector. Make no mistake, this change will have knock-on effects for years in communities as well as schools.

If the decision is made against change, it must go back to the Executive who we hope will then accept Full Council’s verdict. The Mayor gave this as one of his election promises, despite being personally in favour of two-tier (mind you he also said only if the money is there, which it obviously isn’t in the primary sector).

The vote, we believe, is on a knife-edge and may be decided by the number of abstentions or even absentees. Should it be equal, then it will be decided by the Speaker’s casting vote, and surely then the presumption should be for the status quo…

Change of this magnitude should not be made on a marginal basis – councillors rarely reject professional officers’ reports and if half of them have failed to be convinced, then that tells a story in itself.

Contact the councillors to let them know how you feel – they don’t have to agree with three-tier to vote against this proposal, they only need to disagree with the financial viability of the primary sector funding.

A long long time ago, when our group of parents, grandparents, teachers and governors decided to get together to fight the seemingly inevitable decision to change our school system, we named ourselves after the most obvious casualty – hence Save Middle Schools.

Today we are sorely tempted to rename the campaign Save Lower Schools as the long-term casualties will be our excellent lower schools who will be underfunded, overcrowded and struggling for decades to metamorphose into primary schools under this proposal.

In recent days we have highlighted the financial nightmare that has been recommended by the final report. Only £27.2M of funding is allocated for the lower-primary switch, cobbled together from every available source – future government funding, sales of land, proceeds from housing developments, “top-slicing” of schools budgets (that’s robbing Peter to pay Paul to you and me).

If any one of these is lower than expected, or if any overspend occurs, then there really is no more money, as Michael Headley – the Finance portfolio holder – told the Executive on Wednesday evening.

What is worse than this is that the £27.2M will only pay for the shell of classrooms – it doesn’t cover any extra toilets, circulation space, corridors, chairs, tables, resources, extra staff space, enlarged halls, specialist space for the different requirements of Years 5 and 6, etc etc.

In a decade when Government spending will have to be reduced dramatically in order to curb public debt, and education budgets post-2011 have already been targeted, this really will be a catastrophe.

Unfortunately, portacabins will be the result – and many of those are still around on school sites from the last time we changed school structure in the 1970s !

Lower School governing bodies almost without reservation recommended that they support the School Organisation Review during the consultation process – but they didn’t have this information at that time.

SMS wonders how many governors realise what the future holds? How many would support this recommendation now? How many governing bodies of Trust or Foundation schools would now consider legal action against the authority for not revealing this important financial information as part of the consultation process.

The only hope we have is that sufficient councillors will listen to the arguments than having blind faith in the future on Monday night. You can help by contacting councillors and letting them know how you feel, and by being present at the Council Meeting – 6:30 on Monday 16th November in the Harpur Suite at the Corn Exchange.

Yesterday the Executive voted for the School Organisation Review’s recommendation that Bedford Borough change from three-tier to two-tier. Those who voted for the change were Dave Hodgson, Charles Royden, David Sawyer, Nicky Attenborough and Will Hunt (although he only voted for this to go to Full Council and may change his mind once it is voted on there). Barry Huckle was absent, but we presume he would also have voted for change. Councillors in favour of retention were Michael Headley, Sue Oliver and Nick Charsley.

This was despite the obvious financial holes in transforming ~50 lower schools to primary schools, which covers 60 square metres of space per classroom but nothing else. There is no money for equipment to fill them, no extra toilets, no corridors or circulation space, no extra staff space, no extra specialist facilities, nothing beyond the classroom shells.

To finance this, the plan assumes £7.5M of future government funding under the Primary Capital Programme, and £15.7M from capital receipts of land sales. It requires “top-slicing” of schools’ budgets. So 0.3% of 2010’s budget, and 0.6% from 2011 onwards…in addition to the massive reduction in education spend already announced from 2011 onwards.

This of course means there would be no money left over for other routine maintenance of school buildings for at least five years.

And what if the building projects over-run or over-spend I hear you ask?

Funnily enough, nobody can answer this one…more “top-slicing”?…more council borrowing?…an increase in council tax?…areduction in other services?

Maybe we should ask John Goldsmith, one of the authors of the report, who has been quoted in the Times & Citizen today on the matter:

JG said “Other authorities when they have made this change have used temporary buildings, but we have been clear from the outset that we want to have permanent buildings in place”.

We would all want that John…but how are you going to achieve it with this level of funding?

Lower school governing bodies did not have the detailed financial proposals when they voted on whether to support the change to two-tier last summer. I’m sure there are some governors who would like to have the opportunity to vote again.

You don’t even have to be a supporter of three-tier education to see that this could set early education back years in Bedford.

Fortunately, it’s not too late to help us persuade councillors to use their vote wisely on Monday evening.

Yesterday the Government announced a cut of £340M by cutting 133,000 training places as part of their reduction in the further education budget.

See the full story here.

This is the same Government that is desperately trying to tell us that further major cuts will not be inevitable, that the economy will recover quickly as we spend our way out of recession, and that they would like a fourth term in office (pretty please).

Of course, after the next election (whoever wins) the real cuts are likely to be revealed, and the overly bureaucratic and costly BSF programme under real threat.

So a quick quiz question for all those in favour of change – by how much would the BSF budget have to be reduced in order for the whole two-tier project to be shelved?

Would it be unviable with only £200M? How about £100M? What about if it all disappeared? A bit like the Primary funding which is almost completely illusory according to Appendix 3 of the report.

Moreover, BSF funding is so uncertain that even other authorities in the middle of change (Suffolk) have stopped the process until there is more financial assurance.

Of course, there is more than one visionary in this Borough who would still want to change even if no money were available at all…(which of course it very nearly isn’t in the Primary sector)…

The real problem with this, however, is that change costs a vast amount of public money, time and effort, and while that is being spent attention is being diverted from teaching and learning. Which is precisely why other authorities have suffered a major dip in results during and for around 4-6 years after change, the dip being indicative of a loss of focus and morale.

The only way you can help stop this is to contact the councillors and let them know that you think.

You only have until Monday evening to help save the education of a generation of children.

Change is inevitable in life. Everyone within SMS accepts that educational progress should be a priority in Bedford Borough and that change is inevitably a part of that.

However, any change carries risk, and when that risk becomes unmanaged or even unmanageable, then alarm bells start ringing. There are so many flaws in the primary funding plans, that even with BSF funding, we are risking a whole generation of children’s education. Our primary schools will become overcrowded institutions, lacking specialist facilities for Year 5 and 6 pupils and coping with portacabins owing to funding shortfalls.

Other authorities have believed they hold the secret to changing without disruption, and they have learned the hard way that this is just a fantasy. Milton Keynes have only just recovered, 5 years after change, to the same level as we are – and their change involved only 1 year group (middle schools aged 8-12 became junior schools aged 7-11), did not involve closing schools and only involved one new school building. In fact, in many parts of MK they still effectively have 3-tier (infant, junior and secondary)

Suspicions also arise where clear success criteria are not laid out in advance of change. The inevitable massive disruption must be worth the end result in order to justify change, but these success criteria appear to be entirely missing from the report. So how are we to judge success? And more importantly, how are we to judge failure, if the financial house of cards comes tumbling down and we are left in the middle of a chaotic change, just like Suffolk are at the moment.

Risk should be worth the reward. When the rewards are uncertain and the risks very great, then that is the time to explore the alternative – an enhancement and evolution of our current three-tier system with specific focus on the bits that aren’t working as well as they ought – across the lower, middle and upper schools.

If you want to stop this damaging change, then please help by contacting the councillors to let them know how you feel and attending the Full Council Vote on Monday 16th November at 6:30 in the Harpur Suite (Corn Exchange).

Yes, full of holes, is the 200+ page report.

If you look at Appendix 4, it indicates that improvement is more or less guaranteed after change to two-tier…mmm, let’s look at that conclusion more closely…

Appendix 4: “Thus four of the five authorities showed some improvement in GCSE performance following change, although that in Warwickshire was small and has subsequently been lost.”

What the DCSF data actually show is that in four out of the five authorities cited in the Council Officers’ report GCSE performance fell during and after the change to 2-tier. Exactly the opposite of what they hide by only looking at the 2008 data.

During the change over to 2-tier MK GCSE results fell to 10% below the England average. 5 years of decline before MK recovered in 2008 by spending considerably more per pupil than in Bedford’s schools. And this was in an authority where only 1 year group was changed and no schools were closed…a much easier task than we have here in Bedford.

During the change over to 2-tier Merton GCSE results fell to 13% below the England average. 4 years of decline before Merton recovered in 2008.

Buckinghamshire changed between 1998-2000. From 1997 to 2008 GCSE passes have fallen 7.3% compared to the national average.

Only in Bradford has the GCSE pass rate improved compared to the national average, albeit from an incredibly low base, around 13% below the national average.

Warwickshire’s results stayed fairly stable, hovering around the national average, although results were only available for a limited period after change here.

So what this shows is that in only one authority, which was underperforming terribly, have results improved after a change to two-tier.

This change has been presented as inevitable because of our terrible underperformance at GCSE (wrong), because change will lead to improvement (unlikely), and because everybody wants the change (err…not true at all).

The only way for you to stop this is to contact the councillors, preferably by phone as emails can be ignored.

If councillors vote to support the conclusions of the 200+ page report, then they will succeed in creating a step-change in educational standards in Bedford Borough.

Unfortunately, they will be a step downwards, as every authority has shown during and immediately after the change. Results then take years to return to where they were pre-change, with no guarantee they will actually be higher.

In the meantime, a generation of children will received an impoverished educational experience, not just in terms of Mr.Gradgrind’s average GCSE results compared to those for whom grammar schools are available, but also with middle school teachers whose morale has fallen so much they are seeking to leave Bedford or the profession, with crowded and unsuitable primary accommodation, and with upper schools trying to build, accommodate new pupils and staff, and cope with the demands of compulsory post-16 education, all at the same time.

One of the most damaging aspects will be to our generally excellent lower schools – the section of the report which deals with this side of the funding is very dense, speaking in financial tongues and generally trying to hide the problems from its readership. Sir Humphrey always used to say that was the best way to get something past a Minister – hide it in the bottom of a red box!

Funding for the lower-primary change is very low and what is now clearer is that:

1. There is no funding for any new equipment for new primary classrooms, with furniture/ICT/equipment needing to be imported from existing middle schools presumably.
2. No funding for any externals – for example adapting playgrounds or sports fields.
3. No allowance for toilets, cloakrooms, corridors or practical/group spaces.

This last one is most important. Page 121 of the report says that 7560 square metres of space will be needed for 126 new classrooms – which is 60 square metres each.

This of course, has not considered room for anything else but the standard classroom space of 56-63 square metres. Guidelines for space requirements in schools are available here.

We have always said that funding was a huge problem – and now that the details are being examined, none of us are particularly surprised that the report was not published until only 12 days before the Full Council vote.

There are now only 10 days left – and the only people that can change this are the councillors. Contact them all and tell them what you think…and encourage everyone else to. The only way that this proposal will get voted down is by pressure from you.

The long-awaited consultation report has been published – all 201 pages and 6MB of it. The link to it is here.

And what does it say? Well of course it recommends a change to two-tier, as we knew all along it would. After all, we have just had the worst example of a non-consultation process that many of us have experienced.

What is interesting is that 57% of responses were in favour of three-tier overall, rising to 66% amongst parents/carers of current pupils. And this, remember, is despite the overwhelming and public display of support for two-tier by the lower and upper school Heads.

So it is clear that those parents who are experiencing the current system and who understand its value have voted overwhelmingly in favour of retention.

This could be a disastrous decision that causes chaos in Bedford’s education system, just like it has done in Northampton and Suffolk recently, both of which are now failing authorities. It could also cause financial meltdown in our schools as budgets are diverted to supporting an ill-planned and under-funded switch.

The Borough Education Officers have ignored the public. The councillors should be aware of the unpopularity of this decision. We urge everyone to contact all councillors urgently, especially their own plus the Executive and Roger Rigby (the Speaker who may have the casting vote in a Full Council debate). Let them know your strongly-held views as this decision can be changed by public protest.

Members of the Executive who make the first decision on Wed 11th are Dave Hodgson, Charles Royden, Barry Huckle, Michael Headley, David Sawyer, Nicky Attenborough, Nick Charsley, Sue Oliver and Will Hunt – their details may be found here.

Spread the word amongst your friends and family !

Can we do it? Yes we can !

Perhaps it is also worth mentioning now that the two online petitions stand at 1129 for three-tier and 161 (currently) for two-tier. Maybe that last figure will go up slightly now in response to this blog…but then our petition has closed, so we regard this as the final result (plus another 9000 or so written signatures, about 7000 of which made it into the report, the others being collected afterward July 24th).

Confirmation of the decision making process

The Executive will consider this on Wednesday 11th November at 6:30 in the Harpur Suite, Corn Exchange. Details are here. Members of the public may attend and ask questions of the Executive.

Should the Executive recommend a change to two-tier, then Full Council will consider this at a special meeting on Monday 16th November at 6:30 in the Harpur Suite, Corn Exchange. We would strongly urge you to attend this meeting. More details will be posted on this blog should they become relevant and when they are available.

The School Organisation Review report will be published on the Council’s website on Wednesday November 4th when the officers will almost certainly recommend a change to 2-tier. The Mayor and the Executive will then meet on Wednesday November 11th and, should they refer the decision to Full Council, the vote will be taken on Monday November 16th at the Corn Exchange. If this is the case, and when the venue and time is confirmed, we will publish that here and would encourage you to attend – democracy in action and all that.

We believe that we have made a rational case for an evolution of our three tier system which does not risk the education of a generation of children or the financial stability of Bedford Borough.

If you want to help get that message across to councillors, please contact them by email or phone and let them know that you support us.

Following on from yesterday’s “green” blog, communities may find there are more knock-on effects, especially in rural areas. When the money runs out, the spectre of closing smaller village schools and combining them into much bigger primary schools sited where the middle schools used to be could become reality.

That would really show efficiencies of scale. It would also show a complete and utter lack of understanding of why many people choose to live in the countryside.

One of the costs of change that hasn’t been explored fully is the potential environmental cost. Why are we going to pull down existing buildings rather than refurbishing and re-using them? What environmental consequences might there be with new larger schools and pupils travelling greater distances to them? How many more car journeys will there be across Bedford each day?

This isn’t a decision that will just affect children, schools and families – it will affect all of us in our daily lives.

It takes massive sums of money to change an authority’s schools from three tier to two tier. Redeployment of buildings and of staff (600 redundancies are planned in Bedford Borough) takes a vast amount of resources in itself, which is perhaps why BSF programmes have been beset by bureaucratic overspend, especially on consultants’ fees – £350M, even if it does exist, may well be insufficient for the task ahead.

Where, of course, funding is practically non-existent, is in the lower-primary switch. Estimated at a maximum of £60M in the consultation document, with £30M of borrowing against future capital receipts, this is a woeful underestimate of the true cost. Remember, this is the same number of pupils being subsumed into lower schools as into upper schools, and it is intended to cost about 1/6.

The real scandal is that Bedford Borough is that any shortfall in funding for the change to two-tier is going to be taken from the Dedicated Schools Grant. Read our letter to Chairs of Governors from September 1st.

This, of course, is in addition to the national £2 Billion cut in schools’ budgets from 2011.

Schools are under enough financial pressure as it is – why would we subject them to a very uncertain future by creating potential chaos?

Another issue (raised repeatedly by Alistair Burt during the past six months) has been whether BSF funding is guaranteed.

Critically, nobody will assure him that £350M will be forthcoming. More worrying, nobody knows just what may happen in the next 18 months as a new Government comes into power.

What is certain is that public finances are in a shocking state – the country is £175 Billion in debt and last week there were rumours of more “quantitative easing” by the Bank of England…another £50 Billion was mentioned, which is getting on for another £1000 of debt for every person in Britain.

Every part of the public sector is already notified of cuts from 2011. The “Golden Age” of public funding is over and schools are already looking at a 2% cut in funds, without the ball and chain of funding the lower to primary switch from their own budgets.

BSF was seen as the Golden Goose for Bedford Borough – but it won’t be laying those golden eggs for much longer and there is a very great risk that funding will be pulled or reduced in the middle of a change to two-tier.

This would be disastrous, as underfunded change in Northampton and Oxford has demonstrated. Suffolk are so worried by these events that they have curtailed their school reorganisation in the middle, leaving whole areas in limbo.

Bedford Borough needs to act prudently at this time – a move to change every school at once is too risky, aside from being too disruptive and unlikely to lead to school improvement.

It would be much better to bid for BSF funds targeted at transforming underperforming schools in disadvantaged areas and upgrading specific facilities in other areas that are in a desperate state of repair.

Evolution not Revolution

About 12 months ago, Chris Hilliard and the late Graham Last negotiated in principle a sum of £350M of BSF funding for Bedford Borough. Brian Glover, appointed to continue this work, then ensured that any capital receipts would be retained by Bedford, instead of 50% being returned to BSF as in usually the case.

Whether or not this money will exist under a new Government, we have always recognised that this was magnificent and all those involved should be commended for their professional efforts.

However, where we disagree is how this information appears to have communicated, or indeed spun.

It was allowed to become “public knowledge” that the £350M was apparently linked to changing to two-tier. Furthermore, that we would be unlikely to receive funding to remain three tier as this would not demonstrate a “transformation” of our schools. The late Frank Branston implied or stated this in public several times.

Nadine Dorries then made a crucial intervention by gaining permission for an Adjournment Debate on July 6th, where she and Alistair Burt received assurances from Iain Wright (the Schools’ Minister) that BSF funding was not linked to any particular school system, that three-tier bids have been successful recently, and that the Government’s position on school systems is that it should be a local decision made by local people – nobody has ever shown that one system is better than another.

The problem is that many parents who filled in the School Organisation Review didn’t realise this; in fact many of them probably still believe the spin which came from those in positions of power. So how relevant are the results from the review when it is published on Nov 4th?

SMS calls on councillors to use their judgement on this rather than accepting the official version of events. The fates both of our children’s education and the Borough’s financial future are in your hands.

Continuing our theme this week…most of the arguments pro two-tier are based on half-truths. This is an excellent way to mislead, because the unwary recognise the half that is true and fail to spot the logical inconsistency in the other 50%.

Example number 4:

Pro two-tier: Secondary schools are so much better because they match their teaching to the National Curriculum Key Stages.

Pro three-tier: So do lower and middle schools – the National Curriculum is a continuous and hopefully progressive journey, not distinguished necessarily by age but by natural development.

This, of course, is the same National Curriculum that is being dismantled piece by piece by the current Government…not to say what the next Government will attempt to do to Schools.

Michael Gove for example seems very keen to change things, and I’m sure he won’t stop introducing new initiatives just because Bedford is busy changing school system !

Read more educational arguments under the Summary tab above – back on Monday looking at finance (or rather the lack of it).

Continuing our theme this week…most of the arguments pro two-tier are based on half-truths. This is an excellent way to mislead, because the unwary recognise the half that is true and fail to spot the logical inconsistency in the other 50%.

Example number 3:

Pro two-tier: GCSE choices are very difficult in Year 9 because teachers don’t know the children well enough.

Pro three-tier: Teachers in secondary schools of 2000 pupils do not “know” their pupils very well at all. They turn up each September with almost entirely new faces in each of their classes and start from scratch again, learning new names and adjusting to new personalities. That’s if the teachers themselves aren’t new themselves…in fact it’s probably a struggle to know the names of all one’s colleagues in such large schools !

As for GCSE choices, Secondary Schools rarely begin to think about these until the start of Year 9 and there are now also a range of post-14 options, many of which are not taught to younger pupils, so these would be unfamiliar to everyone.

GCSE choices are always concerning for children and parents – and there is no reason why the process cannot start in Year 8 as part of the transition to upper school – it’s a pretty flimsy reason on which to base massive disruption of a generation of schooldchildren.

Continuing our theme this week…most of the arguments pro two-tier are based on half-truths. This is an excellent way to mislead, because the unwary recognise the half that is true and fail to spot the logical inconsistency in the other 50%.

Example number 2:

Pro two-tier: Two transitions are more disruptive than one.

Pro three-tier: Not if they are managed properly. Two smaller well-managed transitions between smaller, medium and larger schools ensures that children have the maturity to cope with change.

On the other hand, one harsh disruptive move from class-based teaching in Year 6 to subject-based teaching in Year 7, in huge schools of 2000 adolescents and young adults, can leave vulnerable young people emotionally disturbed for months if not years.

When this happens with three year groups at once (planned for Bedford in September 2014 or 2015 when Years 7,8 & 9 will all move at once), most of the new secondary schools will be struggling under the weight of nearly a thousand new pupils in one intake. In other schools in other authorities, this has caused standards to plummet for a generation.

Parents and teachers of middle (and prep) school children all over the country recognise the value of middle years education in producing rounded and confident young people.

Perhaps it is only bureaucrats and politicians without direct parental experience of the system who don’t recognise this.

Most of the arguments pro two-tier are based on half-truths. This is an excellent way to mislead, because the unwary recognise the half that is true and fail to spot the logical inconsistency in the other 50%.

Example number 1:

Pro two-tier: there are practically no middle years training courses in the country, therefore teacher recruitment in Bedford is doomed.

Pro three-tier: This fails to recognise that most middle school teachers choose to teach in a middle school and, once in the system, are extremely happy to stay there. Far from being a dead end in a career, middle schools offer opportunities for leadership in human-sized organisations that would otherwise not exist for many teachers.

It also avoids the real positive of middle schools, which is the vibrant and creative mix of primary generalists and secondary specialists, something that is very modern indeed. In a truly two-tier system, primary and secondary go their separate ways and “never the twain shall meet”.

This then leads to one very harsh transition between sometimes very small primary schools and massive secondary schools – which in the end is much more disruptive than two smaller well-managed transitions.

Teachers don’t look at the whole country when they choose their jobs – they tend to teach in areas in which their family lives, where they studied, or where their partner works. Very few make large geographical moves more than once or twice. Teacher recruitment problems are a huge red herring.

Good schools will always attract good teachers, whatever the system. Many of our schools are already very good or outstanding – so why aren’t we targeting resources at the challenging schools rather than looking to change a whole system?

Do you remember in the dim distant past (5 months ago) when the School Organisation Review (public consultation) was published? Do you remember the core arguments made in favour of change?

1. Bedford’s GCSE results aren’t very good.
2. Our three tier education system must be the cause of this.
3. There is £350M available for secondary buildings if we can show transformational change.
4. Therefore we must change to two-tier to improve results and get the dosh.

Someone trained in logic would have a field day with this chain of reasoning. It is nonsense from start to finish.

1. Results can always improve but we are in line with the national average, perform better than authorities of similar size and demographics (Milton Keynes and Swindon for example), and have some outstanding schools with none failing.
2. The Government has admitted that no credible source has ever shown that one system of schooling is better than another – it is much more to do with quality of teaching and leadership. Northamptonshire is now almost completely two-tier and still struggling.
3. Does anyone truly believe that from 2011 there will be a third of a billion pounds available for knocking down serviceable buildings and throwing up some more…? And where is the money coming for the lower-primary move?
4. Even if the money is available, there is no necessity to change school system to access BSF funding – again, the Government has admitted this.

The truth is that this was a non-consultation, a huge waste of public money, based on logical inconsistencies and misleading arguments. It was a nonsense then and it remains a nonsense now.

SMS calls on our new Mayor to show that he really understands the needs of Bedford Borough and to reject any proposal to move to two-tier immediately.

Sometime today, the new Mayor will be elected. Whoever that may be, they deserve congratulations for winning what might turn out to be a close race, and also every good fortune in their new position of responsibility – and to balance the books in Bedford Borough they are certainly going to need a lot of fortune !

The School Organisation Review will be the first serious policy decision over which the new Mayor has influence. We can only hope that he (or she) uses their newfound influence to stop this educationally disruptive and financially ruinous decision.

On Monday this blog will return to the educational and financial arguments against change – as the serious work to Save Bedford’s Schools restarts in earnest.

Yesterday, SMS informed its supporters of its position on the Mayoral Election. The email is reproduced below in its entirety. Should you wish to receive a copy of it so you can forward it around your networks, email us at save.middle.schools@googlemail.com and we’d be delighted to oblige.

——————————————————————————–

Dear SMS Supporter and others,

Please forward this email onwards so that we can reach as many voters as possible. Newcomers to the details of the debate should read https://savemiddleschools.wordpress.com/summary/ if they need any more convincing !

Many of you have asked us how you should vote in the forthcoming Mayoral election. Our response has always been that we are not a political party, but a single issue campaign group and that you should vote for whoever you think will do the best for Bedford rather than their own or their party’s interests. However, if you wish to vote on this single issue, the positions of the three leading candidates as we understand them are given below.

Don’t forget that you have two votes under the voting system, and your vote may be transferred to your second choice candidate in the “second round”, where the top two contenders go head-to-head on combined first and second votes. Second votes may win this election.

Your votes may make the difference between electing a pro three-tier or a pro two-tier Mayor.

Parvez Akhtar (three-tier): (and pictured on his leaflet outside Alban Middle School’s “Save Our School” sign)
“As a dad of children in local lower, middle and upper schools, I know how important it is we get this decision right. I believe our three-tier schools have served us well. The case for change hasn’t been proven and there’s now massive uncertainty that the Labour Government would give us the money needed for a reorganisation – but here’s my personal guarantee: parents’ views will have the real role in my consultation process that many feel they don’t have now.”

Apu Bagchi (three-tier):
“I will put the brakes on the borough’s expensive school reorganisation programme and invest more to improve the educational attainment of all our children. If the predicted public spending squeeze really starts to bite, I don’t want to see the local taxpayer having to bail out a scheme that will create massive disruption for teachers, parents and a generation of our school children.”

Dave Hodgson (two-tier):
“My position is that I would like to see the system in Bedford Borough change to two-tier.”

Our (very informal and unscientific!) private polling suggests that this will be a very close contest between these three over two rounds of voting and that the other candidates are not in the running, but for the record Tony Hare supports three-tier strongly, James Valentine supports two-tier and Eve Robinson-Morley would like a referendum of those affected by the decision.

Thousands of voters have signed our petitions – please make sure they get out and vote pro three-tier on Thursday October 15th.

Regards,

Save Middle Schools

Last night several members of SMS were at Wootton Upper School for the Mayoral Question Time organised by a group of Sixth Formers (incidentally they got the biggest round of applause of the night and deservedly so – good show guys!)

Chaired by Chris Gill of the BoS, the 6 Mayoral candidates answered questions from the audience on all the major issues of the campaign…transport, regeneration, crime and disorder, balancing the books etc…

…and generally we have to say they all gave very reasonable answers most of the time…but with the occasional exception there seemed to be very little difference between their answers…they even agreed with each other !

And then the schools issue came up. Here there was a clear difference.

Parvez Akhtar said that “The first thing that I am going to do is ring the Schools’ Minister and ask him whether he can guarantee the BSF money exists” and, later on, “It’s not going to happen”

Apu Bagchi said “I’m not in favour of change.”

Tony Hare said “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.”

Eve Robinson-Morley said “I’d like a referendum of the people it affects”

Dave Hodgson said “I’m in favour of two-tier but I will accept the Full Council decision and there are other provisos”

James Valentine said “As a Labour Mayor working with a Labour Schools’ Minister I’ll be able to secure the BSF money”…mmm…maybe it won’t be a Labour Schools’ Minister for very long though…he also didn’t seem to realise that there is a huge underfunding in the lower-primary switch…very worrying James, you seemed so plausible and smooth, yet have so little in-depth knowledge of the issues…

What was obvious is that this is one of the only issues that divides the main candidates and that, in a potentially low turn-out, supporters of this campaign can make a difference to the final vote.

We will be emailing our supporters’ list later today in order to let them know our thoughts on the candidates’ views, and to encourage them to exercise their democratic right next Thursday.

Yesterday at the Conservative Party Conference, George Osborne announced plans (should he be in a position to implement them) to cut public sector bureacracy – cutting Whitehall budgets by a third which will then lead to massive job cuts.

Well, good luck with that one George – I’m sure Sir Humphrey will tell you he needs to employ 10,000 more staff in order to implement the cuts.

In all, the Conservatives are planning about £7 billion of cuts every year of the next Parliament.

Hands up who thinks £350 million to change school system in Bedford is a good use of public funds then…

One member of SMS was at Apu Bagchi’s event last night to hear Martin Bell speak on behalf of the leading Independent candidate. Martin described himself as “just an old bloke who wants to make a difference” or something similar – well, hopefully he has made a difference to Apu’s campaign.

Starting as a 66-1 outsider, odds on Apu have now shortened to 8-1 or less, and, talking to people outside SMS (which we do occasionally), momentum is being carried into the final ten days of the Mayoral campaign by someone who would carry cross-party respect.

Martin’s support has obviously helped put Apu in the public eye. But Apu’s surge in the polls is more than that. It is a sign that the voting public are disaffected with party politics.

Steve Lowe (in the BoS) and others have said before that Bedford needed Frank Branston as Mayor precisely because he was genuinely and obviously his own man – a true Independent.

Apu Bagchi is not another Frank Branston – nobody is – but he is most certainly Independent, and experienced enough to be the calming hand on the tiller.

And Apu’s stance on schools? Don’t be silly – of course he wouldn’t embark on an expensive and unnecessary reorganisation when massive public spending cuts are just around the corner.

For those of you who like to hear (and see) the candidates opinions rather than accepting our (very slightly biased) interpretation…

Those nice guys at Heart Bedford FM have posted 3-4 minute interviews with all 6 Mayoral candidates including the question “Where do you stand on the School Organisation Review”…and their views are getting much clearer now.

Apu and Tony are very firmly in favour of retention with Parvez only slightly behind them.

James and Dave both support two-tier in principle, with many political noises from Dave in particular about changing his mind if the money isn’t there blah, blah, blah…SMS has been telling you this for months now Dave…you say you are a successful businessman…would you open new premises if your bank was about to foreclose on you?

Eve rather strangely dodges the question – surely, as the Green Party candidate, she would be appalled at the huge waste of ripping down existing buildings and the potential for 11 year olds to be transported large distances to huge secondary schools?

Anyway, some enterprising Sixth Formers at Wootton Upper School have arranged that you can see all the candidates and ask questions in a debate chaired by Chris Gill (editor of the BoS) next Wednesday 7th October 7:30-9:00. To register for the meeting email debate@wootton.beds.sch.uk with your name and any questions you wish to ask.

“With forecast cuts in public spending it is likely that the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme will need to consider more refurbishment and less new builds.”

With this quote, Roger Hawkins begins to argue the case for positive refurbishment of existing structures for schools in the Architects’ Journal.

Some buildings are obviously better pulled down, but many can be modernised effectively and gradually, and using funds that are realistically available. Ambitious plans can be made, but if funds disappear, they can be modified or cancelled.

These options aren’t available if school system change occurs. Pupils have to be housed somewhere; they need classrooms.

Nobody knows if funding will still be there after a change of government. Nobody knows where the lower-primary funding is coming from at all.

So why are we planning a revolution rather than an evolution?

Dave Hodgson has got around to addressing the schools debate. Unfortunately not in the press as yet, but by email reply to SMS supporters and others who have queried his silence on the issue. His reply is standard and was forwarded to us by several people keen for it to gain a wider audience.

As this is the only issue in the election which appears to provide clear ground between the candidates (they all want to build the bypass, they all want to regenerate the town centre, they all want to attract business) then we do wonder why it has taken this long for Dave to reply – perhaps he has a lot on at the moment…

SMS will issue a reply to this letter in due course via this blog, but comments are very welcome to Dave’s email…all comments are anonymous via pseudonym of course and you can easily set up a temporary googlemail or hotmail account to further protect your anonymity from us (like Fred & William).

———————————————————————————————————
Thank you for your email about the school structures. I know that schools and schooling is something about which people, including myself, are passionate. Indeed, I came to Bedford when my father was appointed Headteacher of Westfield School and I went to school in Bedford through the last restructuring.

Regards
Dave Hodgson

Back in 2005, Northampton’s 3-tier system was changed to 2-tier. By November 2007, there were more schools in special measures or on notices to improve in Northamptonshire than in any other authority, many of them in Northampton as a direct result of the change.

Well, the special forces team have been into Northamptonshire for the past year and have now come up with a brand new shiny 21 point plan to improve educational standards. The Northampton Evening Telegraph covered this a week or so ago on their front page.

The proposed changes include cutting the summer holidays to four weeks and lengthening the school day.

Cllr Ron Sawbridge, chairman of the pupil attainment working group which is behind the plans, said: “If we are going to improve the situation quickly we need to introduce radical changes.”

Apparently changing from three tier to two tier wasn’t radical enough.

SMS wonders how much money has been diverted from teaching and learning to come up with this plan…and whether Suffolk are going to produce the same plan in a year’s time…and whether Bedford will be in 5 years’ time…

Word reached SMS this week of Parvez Akhtar and Apu Bagchi’s first newsletters. This is what they say about schools:

Parvez Akhtar – Conservative (and pictured on his leaflet outside Alban Middle School’s “Save Our School” sign)
“As a dad of children in local lower, middle and upper schools, I know how important it is we get this decision right. I believe our three-tier schools have served us well. The case for change hasn’t been proven and there’s now massive uncertainty that the Labour Government would give us the money needed for a reorganisation – but here’s my personal guarantee: parents’ views will have the real role in my consultation process that many feel they don’t have now.”

Apu Bagchi – Independent
“(I will) put the brakes on the borough’s expensive school reorganisation programme and invest more to improve the educational attainment of all our children.” In his manifesto, Apu adds: “If the predicted public spending squeeze really starts to bite, I don’t want to see the local taxpayer having to bail out a scheme that will create massive disruption for teachers, parents and a generation of our school children.”

Last week, Tony Hare (Independent) said in the T&C:
“To change to a two-tier structure will cost a considerable amount of money, and the construction, upheaval to children at a vulnerable time, and the additional travelling for children in rural areas will all be for what? To change the existing system while using the same teachers, teaching the same children and using the same curriculum, for the same duration, with no guarantees of any better results.”

It seems like these three candidates ought to have our support then, as they have called this issue correctly.

For James Valentine (Labour, who supports two-tier on the basis of two school transitions being more disruptive than one) and for Dave Hodgson (LibDem, who apparently doesn’t think this is important enough to have a view either way in public) perhaps our readership might like to reconsider their traditional party allegiances this time round.

And in an election that may be too close to call, everybody’s votes (both of them, first choice and second) will count.

So SMS are asking that you ensure you, your family and your friends vote for a candidate who openly supports stability, not educational and financial chaos. Spread the word.

Suffolk is in the middle of a change from two-tier to three-tier, based on the availability of BSF funding. Unfortunately, as reported on this blog on Day 139, half of the project has been put on hold over concerns that money will not be available post-2011.

In the meantime, teachers have left in droves from middle schools due to close and from an education system in the process of chaotic change.

Yesterday, the DCSF announced that expert advisors are being sent to Suffolk to prepare a progress review on results.

To interpret that in plain English, Suffolk is failing to provide a satisfactory education for many of its children. Just like Northampton and Milton Keynes did shortly after they announced their change.

Just like Bedford Borough will in the future should we attempt this unwise and underfunded change to a primary-secondary schools structure.

The Labour Party’s candidate for Mayor made his public views on school system change known in the BoS at the weekend.

James says:
“I believe that changing school too many times hinders a child’s learning, so I support a move to two tier.”.

SMS says:
“James is welcome to his beliefs. However, most parents and middle school supporters believe that two smaller well-managed transitions can be much better than one harsh change from a primary school with maybe only 150 pupils to a huge secondary of 2000 adolescents and young adults.”

James says:
“To avoid disruption to our children, the reorganisation will take place over a long time period – planning and discussions with the schools over the next three years, and implementation between 2013 and 2015. But we need to decide now.”

SMS says:
“The disruption will be caused over the next 10 years, with Marie Celeste middle schools for 5 years losing their best staff and their brightest children whose parents will scrimp and save to put them into the private sector.”

“The disruption will be caused in upper schools, as three year groups and their new teachers descend on one day in September 2014 or 2015 and have a far-reaching effect on results for years, as in other authorities that have changed recently.”

“The disruption will be caused in lower schools, where the change to primary is underfunded and due to come out of the schools’ own budgets.”

“The disruption will be caused for all teachers, where the new government’s educational initiatives and financial cuts will have to be implemented at the same time as this damaging change.”

“Yes, we do have to decide now. Decide to remain three-tier for the next 30-50 years, so bureaucrats and politicians don’t come back and try again in 3,5,10 years’ time.”

James says:
“I am telling you this because I think it is important for Bedford’s democracy that anyone who wants to be Mayor is honest about what they believe.”

SMS says:
“Thank you James. That is the most sensible thing you have said so far. We don’t agree with your opinion on schools, and you probably won’t get elected as the ‘reds’ aren’t the nations favourite colour at the moment, but you might have made a reasonable Mayor of Bedford.”

“Perhaps it is time for Dave Hodgson to show his hand now. Come on Dave, you know you want to…”

Ed Balls yesterday confirmed that, from 2011, there will be a £2 billion cut in schools’ budgets and said that he could successfully deliver them.

His solution? Mainly by creating federations of schools, where senior posts are shared across schools and therefore saving money by employing fewer senior non-teaching staff. Also a reduction in bureaucrats, which is always a popular thing to say (and you’ll hear more of that in the run-up to the next general election from all parties I’m sure).

So, from 2011, schools in Bedford will be involved in a massive reorganisation of senior management in order to find the huge cuts that Ed Balls has proposed (or whatever Michael Gove’s alternative is).

The education world will be in turmoil in order to find cuts of this size…and at the same time, Bedford is going to change its schools system?

And all this assumes that BSF funding will survive, and schools will find the money for lower-primary transition…

…and our children, schools and families will all continue happily along their way, gaining improved results?

Absolute fantasy.

So what can you do?

Help to vote in a Mayor who has a clear policy to retain and support three-tier education by any means possible – spread the word by email and social networking – “viral” campaigns such as ours can be more effective than leafletting in the modern world.

Encourage others to actively vote for three-tier supporters (with both their votes) and against two-tier supporters (by not voting for them)

Tony Hare announced yesterday in the Times & Citizen that he would be running for Mayor as an Independent candidate. His comments on the schools debate included:

“To change to a two-tier structure will cost a considerable amount of money, and the construction, upheaval to children at a vulnerable time, and the additional travelling for children in rural areas will all be for what?”

“To change the existing system while using the same teachers, teaching the same children and using the same curriculum, for the same duration, with no guarantees of any better results.”

Quite. Well said.

There are now 5 candidates declared openly and of those positive sounds in public for a sensible decision on schools have been made by Parvez Akhtar (Conservative) and Tony Hare (Independent). James Valentine (Labour) has not had much press at all yet so we don’t know his views. Dave Hodgson (LibDem) and Apu Bagchi (Independent) had personal profile pieces yesterday in the T&C which (to be fair) were not policy platforms, but neither has made a public commitment yet either.

Of these, Dave Hodgson has solidly refused to make his position clear. Yesterday on this blog Michael Headley confirmed that the LibDems (the largest group) will have a free vote on the issue, which of course isn’t the same thing at all – potential Mayors need to show leadership, and it beggars belief that a man who attended a briefing for his party from both sides back in April or May, has spoken to SMS as part of our councillors’ meetings during the summer, and who is a governor of John Bunyan, does not know which side of the fence he sits on yet.

This is not about what the Consultation Report will say either (as Nicky Attenborough tried to get away with on Monday evening), because the Consultation Document made it very clear which way the “Sir Humphreys” of Bedford Borough were going with this.

It is about leadership. Or rather, a distinct lack of it from a man who may well be elected Mayor on October 15th.

Yesterday in Suffolk, their plans to abolish middle schools were thrown into chaos as half the project was put on hold over concerns about BSF funding post-2011. The full article is here.

Graham Newman, the portfolio holder for children’s services said: “Because the government cannot give us any certainty about levels of funding for future years, we feel that as a prudent and sensible council we have to reconsider the timeline for the remainder of the review. Until we have more clarity on the future financial position, it would be irresponsible for us to make promises on what happens next and when.”

Andrew Stringer, the Green Party councillor who has been one of the leading figures in the fight to retain middle schools, said education in the Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket areas was now facing a crisis.

“We are left with the worst of all possible worlds – an exodus of teachers has already begun because of the changes, which means our children are facing the prospect of falling education standards.

“Two years’ ago, we warned the county council not to proceed until it has a cast iron assurance that the money would be there to pay for it. We feared we were being led down a blind alley and, sadly, we have been proved right,” said Mr Stringer.

The political and educational establishment has already destabilised our schools by trying to influence popular opinion by indicating that this is a “done deal”.

Isn’t it time we voted in a Mayor who believed in stability rather than chaos, incremental change by targeting resources where they are needed rather than massive disruption, visions based on solid reality rather than the fantasy of the Emperor’s new clothes.

What a show the Conservatives put on at Dame Alice Harpur last night ! The audience (of 700+?) queued for miles (almost literally) as the security checks were very tight, although they didn’t seem to mind whether you were carrying any guns or drugs, as long as your name was on the electoral register. Maybe identity cards would have helped…or,err…maybe not…

The surprise guest (Mr.Pickles) and the Chairman then did an impromptu double act on Conservative Party policies under David Cameron for an hour and a half with a style that was very “Eric and Ernie”, in fact Eric Pickles might even have won the nomination at the end if his name had been on the ballot paper. More than one stomach grumbled, and those grumbles moved vertically as the evening wore on…oh well, the best laid plans…democracy in action and all that…

But at last we were off, with a shortened time slot of 5 mins standard questioning from the Chair and 5 mins from the audience, and what fun was had seeing how the prospective mayoral candidates dealt with one standard question in particular: “Three tier or Two tier”?

And these were our impressions of their answers:

Parvez Akhtar: We need to look at it carefully and consider all the evidence. Oh alright, if you insist on a straight answer, I tend to support the three tier side….(wow, a considered but straight answer. How impressive !)

Tom Wootton: I’m a traditionalist. Three tier through and through…(good man)

Nicky Attenborough: How could I possibly comment when the official report hasn’t been published? I don’t know anything about this yet. Once I am elected, I’ll tell you what I think…(methinks she has been well trained by the bureaucrats in Borough Hall – going native they called it in Yes Minister)

Jason Reddy: If the finance is there, then we’ll be able to make a decision…(well, that one’s easy then Jason, because the money isn’t there for the lower-primary change, even if we do get £340M for secondary schools)…and what decision do you personally support? (not that it matters much now…)

And the result? Parvez by a country mile with over 50% of the votes in the first round. There were then quite a few grumbles from the party faithful about procedure and the fact their selection procedure had been “hijacked” by outsiders (ie real and not necessarily Tory voters willing to give up an evening of their time), but to be honest, Parvez was by far the best candidate overall.

The next task of course will be to ensure that the schools debate becomes the main focus of this Mayoral campaign. If any of the other candidates try the Nicky Attenborough approach (she was heckled and not by SMS it must be said), they may get laughed at openly….by the electorate on polling day.

Tonight the Conservative Party plus other more independently minded Bedfordians will select the Conservative candidate for the Mayoral Elections.

The candidates are:

Nicky Attenborough, Leader of the Bedford Borough Conservative Councillors

Tom Wootton, Conservative Borough Councillor

Parvez Akhtar, Chair of the Queens Park Parish Council

Jason Reddy, a Putnoe GP and Deputy Medical Director of the NHS Bedfordshire PCT

SMS wonders what each of them will say about the schools’ debate. Some of us will be there to listen with interest, especially as many traditionally Conservative votes are in wards with very good middle schools.

So far we know of three declared candidates:

Cllr Dave Hodgson – LibDems and Governor of John Bunyan Upper School

James Valentine – Labour and “an upper school” governor (according to his blurb in the BoS)

Cllr Apu Bagchi – Independent and Governor of Castle Lower School

On Monday night the Conservative Party and their invited guests will select their candidate and in one week’s time we will know who all the candidates are.

We wonder when any of them will state their position on whether they support two or three tier education? The voters of Bedford have a right to know what they believe and what they plan to do.

On Tuesday night, David Cameron spoke to an audience of 140 in Bedford about future Conservative policy after the next General Election – should they win a majority of course.

He was asked about BSF funding and he said that he “thinks” the money will still be available. Excellent news.

He also said that it is up to us in Bedford to decide which school system we want to have. More excellent news.

As we know that the BSF funding does not cover lower-primary change and that this money will be coming out of school budgets probably for the next 25 years, let us decide positively to retain three tier education and to spend BSF funding wisely on our existing school system.

Also that way, if David Cameron takes office and discovers that the public finances are worse than he “thought”, that swingeing cuts will have to be made, and that BSF funding will be reduced dramatically, we won’t be left in the middle of a financial mess of our own making.

Yesterday, Michael Gove, the high-profile Shadow Children’s Secretary, criticised openly the Building Schools for the Future programme, revealing that £170M had been spent on consultants with hardly any improvement to schools.

This was immediately rebutted by Ed Balls, who said that the BSF funding was not safe in the Conservatives’ hands and that they planned to make big cuts.

All good party political stuff which you can read more about here.

Both Michael and Ed seem to be saying things that are probably true though. The BSF programme is a bureaucrat’s dream, creating reams of paper, reports, feasibility studies, planning meetings, jobs for the boys, etc. Anything to avoid spending money on real children, real teachers and real schools. Any Civil Service scheme would be; will be, even under a Conservative administration.

The next Government, moreover, will almost certainly be forced to make cuts, and it might not just be the blues that do that; the reds, should they make a miraculous recovery in the polls, would almost certainly be forced to make huge cuts too.

It’s not about party politics here – it’s about the inability of politicians to control bureaucratic programmes.

The really interesting thing though, is that the Conservatives are so high profile on Education. Lots more changes ahead methinks.

The new Mayor of Bedford will be elected on Thursday 15th October but will only hold office until May 2011 (19 months) when they will be up for re-election along with every councillor.

The first major decision immediately they take office will be the School Organisation Review and the new Mayor will have a great deal of influence over the result.

This is why it is essential that opponents of the educationally unsound, financially unviable, and massively disruptive change to two-tier, take time to consider their positions (and votes) carefully.

This is also why it is also essential that candidates of all political hues make their intentions clear to everybody. The new Mayor may not make this decision on their own, but they should be able to show leadership. After all, if they can’t give a straight-forward answer on this (much debated) issue, how can we trust them not to be just another politician, in it for their own egos.

Only one candidate has been declared so far – Cllr Dave Hodgson for the LibDems. The BoS yesterday quoted him as saying, “We face enormous challenges such as the decaying town centre, the regeneration of the bus station area and the need for a quality transport system”…not one word about schools there…so we do hope Dave is intending to make his position clear sometime very soon…along with all the other candidates of course…

By the way, don’t forget that the Conservatives have announced that you can help them select their candidate for Mayor by attending their US-style primary on the evening of Monday 14th September. You don’t need to be a party member, and you don’t even have to be a Conservative supporter, but you do have to register by sending your full name and address to: mayor@bedfordconservatives.com.

£1 Trillion is apparently how much the country is in debt – according to the Daily Mail Comment today (so it must be right then…)

The Mail are commenting on the fact that both main political parties are rejecting a consultants’ report which says that job cuts of up to 10% are necessary in order to save £20 Billion over the next 5 years. The NHS, say both Labour and Conservative parties, is far too important…true, but I wonder if the next Government says the same thing when it is forced to cut costs drastically.

£20 Billion is only 2% of the overall debt, if the figures are to believed, hardly anything. £340M of BSF funding is less than 2% of the proposed NHS cut, so a piddly amount (although SMS wouldn’t mind this amount of small change).

There are going to have to be some massive swingeing cuts, and these are going to be coming very soon. BSF funding, especially for school system change, is a luxury compared to employing nurses, teachers, social workers, policemen…

Those people who believe the money has been allocated are fantasists – but we now have the opportunity to ensure that the next Mayor won’t be one of these, by electing someone with some financial sense.

Tell the Mayoral candidates what you think by writing to the Times & Citizen or Beds on Sunday or email the Stephen Rhodes breakfast show on BBC 3CR or Heart FM Bedford.

One week ago GCSE results were published. Many pupils celebrated their individual success and our warmest congratulations to them.

The Bedfordshire on Sunday carried the yearly reports of the very successful pupils with hatfuls of A*s and the Borough commended its schools with a webpage of results.

Now these results are very interesting…if you average the schools’ 5 A*-C results then overall you get 68.4%…compared to a national average of 67.1%…so we could be said to be better than the national average.

And this despite spending £220 less per pupil than the national average.

Surely the consultation document told us that we were considerably worse than the national average on this measure?

The truth is that, since 2006 when the last damaging proposal to change to two-tier was thrown out by county councillors, results have improved year-on-year.

And of course, statistics tend to hide all sorts of real stories, concerning real schools and real pupils.

So let’s focus on the real issue of ensuring that we save three tier education in Bedford by voting in a Mayor who believes in it wholeheartedly.

Lord Baker was in the news yesterday linked with schools – again – you may recollect him from the early days of the National Curriculum and from when “Baker Days” were introduced.

SMS heard him on the Today Programme on Radio 4 enthusing over technical schools, something that has been reworked from Butler’s 1944 Education Act (there are no new ideas in education remember).

This time the schools will be University or FE college-sponsored; of high status; similar to Germany’s very popular technical schools.

This time, however, technical education will be aimed at over 14s…or…err…upper school age children. Lord Baker was particularly at pains to point out that 11 was too young to make decisions about the future but that 14 was just right.

Apparently the idea has all-party support, with particularly enthusiastic sounds coming from the Conservative Michael Gove, the most likely candidate to be Education Minister after the next General Election.

Vernon Coaker (another schools Minister – how many are there?) said “These are really early days,on this and we’re right at the beginning of our thinking. The concept is a good one: 14-19 schools specialising in a couple of areas of diplomas and core GCSEs with links to local employers”.

Remind us again why we we want to change our flexible 14-19 schools into 11-19 leviathans?

The following letter was sent on Friday 28th August by Save Middle Schools to Chairs of Governors of Lower Schools.

————————————————————————————————————–

F.A.O. Chairs of Governors of Lower Schools – Bedford Borough

HOW WILL YOUR SCHOOL BE AFFECTED?

During the summer break, and one week after the School Organisation Review consultation period ended, it emerged that the funding of converting 50 lower schools to primary will not after all be achieved by Council borrowing but by raiding the Dedicated Schools Grant received every year from Central Government. This may result in each school having to find 2% annual savings for potentially the next 25 years.

One can understand why our Council are considering this. The borrowing route will mean a 3.6% increase in Council Tax for 25 years. Projections for the current year suggest an overall overspend of £3million and recent budget projections (assuming no change to the school system and no remedial action taken) point to a requirement to increase Council Tax by £22 million up to the end of 2012/13. This equates to an annual increase of 7% which clearly the Council cannot justify; efficiency savings or cuts in services will be imperative.

One school governor with experience of school building projects has done his own sums on the cost of creating primaries and predicts that the total conversion cost is likely to be over £100 million and not the £60 million included in the consultation document.

Only you will know how difficult it will be to find sustainable cuts in your DSG monies of 2%, 4% 6% p.a.? Very soon, cuts in teaching assistants and equipment will be necessary; and all of this whilst governing bodies will be managing their schools through 5-10 years of unnecessary organisational change.

Many governing bodies of lower schools have supported the two tier proposal on the basis that it would provide opportunities for their own schools. However, in the light of this new information which was not available during the consultation period, your governing body should have the opportunity to reconsider its position and we hope, indeed, that you do so. As the consultation period has now ended, your only recourse now is to contact your local councillor and advise them of the consequences of such a decision for your school.

I am attaching a Press Release from Cllr Michael Headley dated August 3rd which supports our views.

Yours faithfully,

Tony Dadd
Coordinator, Save Middle Schools

————————————————————————————————————–

Date: Monday 3 Aug 09

Schools Budget To Be Raided For Tiers Change?

It has emerged that the Council is considering taking money from the budget for schools to pay for the change to a 2 tier education system.

They have identified a need for a possible £2.4m per year for 25 years to pay for the borrowing needed to extend lower schools into primary schools.

It had been assumed that this would have to come from the council’s general fund budget. However, just a few days after the consultation period closed it has emerged that the council are turning their attention to taking the money from the “Dedicated Schools Grant”, the vast majority of which normally goes straight to schools.

Cllr Michael Headley said “ It seems bizarre that in the name of improving standards the council is even considering cutting the money going into our local schools. Many people fear that a change of school system will be very disruptive for the education of the children caught up in it, but now we face the prospect of these very same children being short changed with cuts in the schools budget.”

“I’m not surprised that the council have at last realised that the expense of this project would be hard to find out of the council’s budget. But I’m astonished that taking it from the money destined for schools is seen as a better option.”

“No sooner has the consultation ended than we learn about this new development. We will never know if parents, schools and others would have changed their view if they had known at the time that there would have to be a 2% cut in the money going to schools to fund this change.”

“I know that superficially there may look like there are savings in closing the middle schools, but it doesn’t take long to realise that they won’t materialise. There will still be the same number of pupils needing teachers Heads and deputies at the enlarged schools will get paid more, whilst those at the middle schools will have protected salaries. Even the total floor area of all schools could well increase rather than decrease. I can see this cut in the schools’ budget ultimately resulting in a worse educational experience for the children.”

In 2009/10 the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) was £92,249,807. Additional school funding streams brings the total funding for supporting schools to £118,397,466. The £2.4m would equate to 2% of that.

ENDS