School closure consultation response
Dealing with surplus primary school places on the Isle of Wight – and the increasing demand for specialist SEND places – is a significant challenge. In addition there is the need to raise educational standards, and provide suitable places in our rural schools which will nurture the potential for thousands of island children in the local communities in which they live.
Change is needed - not just to raise standards but to secure the future sustainability of our smaller primary schools. But this is not just a matter for our Education officers – our ageing population and reducing birth rate demographic change needs addressing. I urge the council to do this – to draft a strategy to reverse this pattern and prioritise attracting and retaining young families to make their home on the beautiful Isle of Wight.
To the schools consultation: the published consultation documents - including the stated considered factors in the ‘background’ of the Proposals Document (children’s health and wellbeing, transport & environment implications, housing and quality of provision) – are positive. It is deeply regrettable that successive Westminster governments have prioritised, protected and supported the policy of academisation of schools. Consequently, Local Authorities like the Isle of Wight do not have the power to close academy schools. This is a fundamental obstacle in doing the best for our island children as it has limited the council’s powers to close or amalgamate all schools.
Saying all of this, after visiting a number of these primary schools which are mentioned in the report (and those which have not been included in this consultation round) and attending the meetings with officers, families and staff, it is clear that there are flaws which threaten to ‘throw out the baby with the bathwater’.
By continuing with these 6 school closures and the break-up and fragmentation of brilliant teams of educators, the rise in class sizes and the instability that closures will bring to the lives of adults and children, we are in danger of creating even further challenges for this generation of primary school children, which will last for years to come.
My concerns include:
DEPRIVATION – many of the children who attend these schools – particularly at Brading and Oakfield – live in areas of economic and social deprivation. They already face bigger obstacles to success through low family income, low family educational prior attainment and limited access to transport. The socio-economic impact on these children, families and communities has not been adequately taken into account. The biggest burden of the consequences of change should be on the broadest of shoulders. The percentage of pupils eligible for free school meals (FSM) is included in documentation in the reports, but it is not given enough importance when it comes to the choice of schools to close and the upheaval that will cause to families who already face disadvantage. Closing schools will require additional transportation costs for hundreds of children – this is a much bigger hurdle for families which don’t have the funds to own a car.
ACTION: revisit the data and put weight on the number of Free School Meals when making decisions about closures.
TRANSPORT – the closure of these 6 primary schools will lead to an increase in the number of vehicles on the roads and the levels of carbon emissions. There is no safe walking or cycling routes from the 3 schools in the rural centre to another primary school (Arreton, Godshill, Wroxall) so these children will have to make additional journeys by car. In addition children living in Brading will be expected to walk over 3 miles to Sandown – a school which is less then 3 miles ‘as the crow flies’ but longer in reality and along a busy main road which floods in winter. Safe, clean, sustainable transport is vital to ensure that all children can get to school without danger, additional cost or delay
ACTION: look at closing schools in towns rather than rural villages. If rural schools need to be closed, make steps to provide free transport/ buses for the children if the nearest school is over 2 miles away.
SEND – the data for the number of children with EHCPs (Education, Health & Care Plans)ehc in a school, or SEN registered, or with additional needs is not included in the documentation. Similar to FSM data, this is important as children with SEND thrive in stable, nurturing school environments. Many of the 6 primary schools have excellent reputations for inclusivity and care with SEND children. Including Phonics and Key Stage 2 SATs results gives a limited analysis of the successes of a school – it does not take into account the level of progress, the number of SEND children and the excellent teaching which still goes on.
ACTION: include SEND data and progress made by children in the documentation, and take into account when determining which schools to close.
RELIGIOUS EDUCATION – the proposed closure of 3 Church of England schools is alarming for the Anglican community on the island, with many of the children losing the opportunity to attend another CofE school. Likewise, the closing of a secular/ community school with the suggested nearest alternative school being CofE/ Catholic is alarming for families with no faith. The religious nature of a school should be taken into account, and spaces at schools with a similar identity should be possible in order to allow for any closures.
ACTION: support families or faith, and with none, by guaranteeing a place at a school with a similar identity.
AMALGAMATION – before schools are closed, there is a preferable approach through amalgamating schools and sharing resources instead. The recommendations in the documentation does not include this. In particular, the rural centre of the Isle of Wight would lose 3 schools as proposed. This is not acceptable.
ACTION: look to the option of sharing resources and amalgamating schools where possible first, before proposing closures.
STAFF – the closure of schools, dispersal of successful and experienced staff teams and redundancy of brilliant staff is unconscionable in a climate of teacher recruitment crisis. These educators have not failed – many, many of them are popular and successful and their loss to the teaching profession will be felt deeply.
ACTION: protect jobs for teachers, keep teaching teams together where possible, guarantee training for staff if needed to allow for redeployment.
BUILDINGS – some of the schools proposed for closure are newly built or renovated, have excellent facilities and are some of the best education properties on the Island (eg Oakfield, Wroxall). They have seen millions of pounds of investment. Likewise, the location of other schools on busy bus routes (Brading, Arreton, Godshill, Wroxall, Oakfield, Cowes) means that they are ideally located for children to access. Plus, the government budget (Oct 2024) announced further funds for the rebuilding of schools.
ACTION: prioritise the retention of the schools with recent investment. Prioritise the retention of schools with good transport links.
PLANNING AREAS – the 8 school planning areas seem arbitrary and inadequate. The notion of ‘Ryde Rural’ with only 2 village schools protected, whilst other nearby schools are proposed to be closed (Oakfield, Brading) does not seem transparent.
ACTION: ensure that the planning areas are fairly drawn
STABILITY – children thrive in stable school and home environments. The educational and health impact of the instability created by school closures must be considered.
ACTION: include an assessment of the negative impact of change. Do not assume that all change is positive.
I fully envisage that a number of alternatives to the initial proposed closure of 6 primary schools will come forward. When that happens, the documentation and reports should be revisited and FSM, SEND and transportation must be taken into account, amongst other factors. Public confidence in the process is vital for success.
Vix Lowthion