Agenda item

The Chairman agreed to 10 requests to address the meeting from the following members of the public and local members:

Councillor Larry Sanders                    -           Local Member

Jane Gallagher                                    -           Local Resident and parent

Bill McKeith                                         -           Executive Officer of the Oxford & District

                                                                        Trades Union Council

Andy Davice                                        -           Local resident and parent

Jeremy Spafford                                 -           Parent

Tony Brett                                           -           Local resident and parent

Anna Thorne                                       -           Parent

Catherine Goodwin                             -           Parent

Ian Bellchambers                                -           Local resident and local resident

Cllr Nuala Young                                 -           Oxford City Council

The principle points raised by each speaker are briefly summarised as follows:

Councillor Larry Sanders

Spoke in support of reason 3 of the call-in ie. that ‘any feasibility study should include looking at other options, not just the academy’, raising the following points:

• The academy was the only option available – Expression of Interest (EoI)  was effectively sponsored by ULT. Other options such as that of the Co-Operative Trust, which had been heavily ‘flagged’ to the Government, had not been considered;
• Two of the fifteen academies sponsored by ULT  had been named by Ofsted as a failing school;
• If the ULT option was successful then all secondary schools in the catchment area would be of a religious nature. It was unfair to parents not to offer them the choice;
• Any consultation which had been undertaken to date had not proved to be very helpful. It was unfortunate that there were proposals already underway to move certain schools on to the Oxford School site, which appeared to have been put in place without discussion with parents and the community.

Jane Gallagher

• As a local resident living in the catchment area for Oxford School and a parent of two children, one of whom was a pupil of Larkrise Primary, Ms Gallagher was alarmed to hear of the decision by Cabinet to conduct a feasibility study on ULT as sponsor;
• She stressed the importance to her family of having the choice of a secular school within the area;
• She expressed her concern that the parents of children directly affected by the Council’s plans had yet to be consulted. Any consultation should precede a written proposal;
• She urged the Council to withdraw the decision to proceed with the feasibility study until all the options had been considered and discussed with parents and the community;
• Ms Gallagher requested that all of her views expressed above be framed in the light of Oxford School’s ‘excellent’ GCSE results.

Bill MacKeith

• Mr MacKeith explained that the Oxford & District Trade Unions Council was an important representative body which had a remit to represent the interests of trade union members and of the wider community;
• Speaking in support of reason 3, he urged the Committee to advise the Cabinet to continue with the status quo, which was an alternative that had not been considered, on the grounds that Oxford School was a good school, with improved GCSE results and which provided parents with a secular choice. He added that the Council was denying the democratic rights of the parents and the staff to proceed with little consultation and to take away the choice of a local secular school.
• He stated that only one of the schools managed by ULT was performing above the national average and alleged that 17% were poor performers;
• Mr MacKeith urged the Committee to advise the Cabinet not to give away a publicly owned community school to an ‘undemocratic private Trust’, nor should they sell off public land;
• He concluded by urging the Committee to refer the Cabinet’s decisions back for further consideration and to let Oxford School continue.

Andy Davice

• Mr Davice stated that, as a parent of two young children living in the catchment area, he strongly agreed with reason 1 , that there had been a lack of consultation with parents, the community and local members;
• He had been concerned to hear it stated (from an unconfirmed source), that the current headteacher of Oxford school was employed by ULT. In his view, if this were to be correct, then a consultation process would be both expensive and superfluous as the decision will have already been made;
•  He also highlighted the impact on surrounding schools within the area of having an academy school with no (alleged) responsibility to take statemented children on their roll;
• Mr Davice also highlighted the issue of reduced parental choice, should parents want a non-faith school for their children.

Jeremy Spafford

• As a parent of a child who was attending the school and another who had attended the School, both of whom were happy and excelling, it was Mr Spafford’s view that the feasibility study should not have been given the go-head to proceed on the basis that it was a failing school. It was his view that it was not a failing school;
• He added that as a parent he had not been either informed or consulted and nor had the teachers. This had led to both feeling confused, upset and undermined by the process. He felt that this was very damaging to the pupils of the school;
• He urged the Committee to recommend Cabinet to consider other options. Whilst he accepted that there were problems which needed addressing, he thought it unjust that the School should be tarred with an adverse reputation, thus making it difficult for the school to attract pupils. There was a need for the Council to promote the School as a good place to go;
• He concluded by warning that it may well be a good option to extend the School to a 3 – 19 age range, but by introducing this, beautiful school grounds could be lost.

Tony Brett

• As a consultation officer for all the schools within the area, and as a neighbourhood action worker, Mr Brett told the Committee that, to date, the community had not been engaged in consultation on the EoI;
• He added that if the proposal to become an academy went ahead, then there would be wide-ranging effects on the infrastructure, including pressure on local roads and the loss of a key cycle lane;
• Without proper engagement, he alleged that the public might believe that the proposal was an attempt by the Council to sell more land for housing purposes;
• He asked why there had been no consultation with other faiths about plans to have a Church of England school, particularly representatives of the Muslim faith;
• Mr Brett concluded that, given allegations that the EoI had been signed off by the Council before the Governing Body of Oxford School had met, it gave the impression that the Council was rushing through the proposal.

Anna Thorne

·         Called upon the Cabinet to put more resources into looking at more options;

·         She added her concern that many of the parents and members of staff already thought that the proposal to change the School to an academy had already been decided, with a start date of 2012. This would have a very damaging impact on school numbers;

·         She concluded that Oxford School was a ‘wonderful’ school and action was needed to allay confusion in the local press.

Catherine Goodwin

• Catherine Goodwin related her address to that of reason 3. As a parent of primary aged children, living in the catchment area, she pointed out that parents at Oxford School were under the impression that Oxford School would become an academy in 2010;
• She was of the view that the Council would not undertake to conduct a feasibility study unless there was good reason to. However, in her view, it did not appear worth doing so, or indeed desirable, in light of the lack of choice in relation to a faith and also in light of the fact that Oxford School’s results had improved greatly;
• She added that in her view, it appeared that staff turnover was high in ULT managed schools.
• In addition, she believed that the MP for the local area was not in favour of an academy, saying that it could not be perceived as viable when one applied any kind of democratic measure to the feasibility study. She added that if parents did not feel that they were being consulted, then that was, in itself, a problem. The Council should be making it a virtue in getting the parents involved.

Ian Bellchambers

• Ian Bellchamber was a parent of two children in year 7 of Oxford School. He spoke in relation to reasons 1 and 3;
• It was his view that, for the proposal to have credibility, then other available options should be looked into, including that of the status quo. Not to do so decried the achievements of the teachers and pupils at Oxford School.
• A secular option would be acceptable and welcoming to all;
• He was of the opinion that other options, such as a Co-operative Trust or federation with a partnership school, should be considered. Not to consider such options represented a denial of parental choice;
• In light of the above, Mr Bellchambers urged the Committee to advise the Cabinet against proceeding with the feasibility study.

Councillor Nuala Young

·         In relation to reason 1, Councillor Young commented that the only favourable message which had come out of a lack of consultation with the community was that the parents had now become informed about the situation and were now galvanised into action;

·         She informed the Committee that, as a Governor of Oxford School, she had been sent a questionnaire which asked her to express an interest in various options;

·         Following the questionnaire exercise, a resolution had been put, and at that point passed that there should be an expression of interest into the possibility of establishing an academy. The problem was that time should then have been devoted to looking at the other options available. The Governors who were present expressed a readiness to do so;

·         She had great hopes for the future success of Oxford School. It had achieved much given the numbers of problem pupils and asylum seekers it had attracted. The School’s twinning activities with a school in Gloucester had also benefitted the school.

·         She concluded by urging  the Committee to advise the Cabinet not to conduct a ‘token consultation’, following the feasibility study, but to look at all alternative options.