“Save Our School”, “Save Our Community Schools”, “A Good Local School For Every Child”, “Bringing Down The Barriers – a state comprehensive education system for the 21^st century”…

do they always mean the same thing?

 

 

Statement for the campaign against the closure of Wisewood and Myers Grove schools - in Sheffield - and their replacement by a Trust School

 

 

Some email correspondence arising out of issues around this determined defence of schools

 

 

Dear BJ (a local longstanding trade union leader)

 

I was very pleased to speak recently at the 170 strong public meeting organised by the campaign group “Save Our Community Schools” which has arisen out of a vibrant campaign against the proposed closure of two Sheffield secondary schools – and their replacement by a Trust School – the central destructive structural “reform” of Blair’s (and Cameron’s) Education and Inspections Act.

 

A very good turnout - and very good spirit. It shows that when people have a real sense of grievance, and they can see a way forward, they can get organised. This campaign, and all the 'spin' about "parental choice" in the media in the last few days make it very important that we look at the issues of individual "save our school" campaigns, and the wider issues of "save our community schools". Sometimes the positives of a campaign by individual parent bodies in defence of their own school have all the positive features of a broad based campaign for state comprehensive education. Sometimes such a campaign includes some of the very negative features of spurious "parental choice", and the division and competition between schools - "save our school"... but at any cost? By competing with other schools for pupils? Usually such individual school base campaigns show both tendencies at the same time - and there needs to be a real "struggle of ideas" - and not simply a welcoming of militancy on any grounds (though, God knows, it IS welcome!!)

 

I'm not suggesting for a moment that the support of parents for their local school is anything but positive - but like all defensive struggles, we need to look deep, and extract what is to be learned. No school can be defended these days independently of the fight for an integrated state comprehensive education system. If a simple "save our school" campaign's success leaves "surplus places" in the system (ie if there is no overall improvement of the PTR as a result, and support for small schools) it can actually encourage the competition between schools in order for each to try to "fill" its places at the expense of others - which is exactly the vehicle that Blair wants to use to undermine the systematic delivery of state education locally. In order for one to school to succeed in this competition, unwary parents may start to look at Trust status, which they think may raise its profile. In order to avoid Local Authority reorganisation in the light of falling rolls in the Authority area as a whole - again parents may consider this new version of "opting out" - this time without even the ballot of all parents that we had under Thatcher!

 

I think all these issue are raised by the National NUT led alliance (about 12 organisations at present) for "A good local school for every child". It is indisputably true that these questions are best considered within the context of a fight against school closure and proposed Trust status - but the immediate response of "save our school" can only be the first step on an important process of maximising community support for an integrated delivery of education, and building the kind of broad alliances - education unions, other unions, parent, governor and community organisations etc - that would be instrumental in taking this wider view.

 

I hope and am confident that both the local NUT and the campaign's parent organisers agree with such developments - but it won't always be immediately easy to get the parents of children at one particular school to see an identity of interest with those of children at another - the other being presented by Government as a "competitor"!

 

It is a real sign of the downward spiral of the Labour Party that Labour Councillors in Sheffield have now told all secondary schools to consider the benefits of Trust status - ie benefits of bailing out of the LEA into private control - and have given them two months to decide whether they wish to go down that route...

 

I'd be really interested to know what you think

 

Bill

 

 

 

Dear K (Save Our Community School Campaign), 

Thanks for inviting me to your meeting - and congratulations on a very successful meeting. I think that it is very important, as you do and as Sheffield NUT does, that as broad a coalition as possible is built against the development of Trust schools and Academies. The NUT nationally and locally is committed to this, and I believe is central to its prospects for success. If I can be of any assistance in this process let me know. 

 

It seemed to me that there is a bit of a tension between an understandable "Save Our School" parental reaction to the closure proposals, and a wider campaign as suggested in your group name "Save Our Community Schools".  

I know that I'm probably teaching grandma to suck eggs here - but I want to make some points all the same! The NUT does not oppose all school closures. We do insist that any closure should be part of a systematic approach to the delivery of  state education - and that in the process the pupils and  teaching staff are properly protected. We do recognise the strengths of smaller schools, and of course, of class size reduction - we would make the point loud and clear  that if we had Pupil:Teacher Ratios similar to the private sector there would be no "surplus places". The local NUT has pursued this policy - and cannot simply back a narrow "save our school" campaign without regard to these facts and analyses. 

 

There remains a danger that, if pupil numbers fall (and there is no planned improvement in PTR) and all schools remain as they are, the resulting "surplus places" will be used to promote destructive competition between schools in order to fill "their" places, and to move the "surplus" elsewhere. This competition plays directly into the hands of the enemies of state education. It encourages the destructive comparison of one school against another, using misleading data, test results, OFSTED judgements etc. The defence of individual schools - while often fully justified - is also sometimes based on the spurious notion of "parental choice" - so beloved by the Blairites. At the same time the natural and often militant position taken by parents in defence of their own school "first and foremost" has progressive features which need to be encouraged - but directed towards the defence of the systematic delivery of state education, against competition between schools, and for good equitably resourced local schools. We also know that school closures and reorganisations have a new dimension now that the "new" school emerging from what used to be known as a merger are now up for grabs by Trusts. All these factors need to be built into an overarching strategy, which is, at its heart very political. Simple militancy by individual parent bodies is not necessarily progressive in this battle - as shown by the comments from just one or two people that they just wanted their school to survive, that the views of parents from other schools were not important, and that a trust school would be OK as long as it remained in the right place. 

 

You've obviously up for a real struggle, and I think - well, I know -  that resolving differences within your very vibrant campaign, and between your campaign group and the NUT locally are extremely important. Thanks, and congratulations again - and sorry if I seem to sermonising about things that you already are very aware of. If I can help build on your excellent organising work, and assist in any way please let me know 

 

All the very best

 

Bill

 

Bill,

 Surely the case for the NUT opposing school closures should be assessed on a case-by-case basis.  In our case we have amply demonstrated that the facts do not add up and our community is not facing a fall in student numbers.  Add to this the fact that our school is over-subscribed and very successful by all standards of measurement.   

I completely fail to understand why the NUT cannot back our campaign fully.  Once the bids are in I think you will have little chance of stopping the formation of a Trust School however much you campaign at that stage - with the result that our members will be sold off to the private sector.  The earlier these things are overturned the better. 

I, and others in our group (particularly fellow NUT members), have been shocked by our union's position and appeal to you once again to reconsider. 

Thanks for the kind words, but more support would be appreciated, both financially and legally. 

Regards,

TM (Save Our Community Schools)

 

Dear TM

I agree absolutely with your first sentence - that's why I wrote, "the NUT does not oppose all school closures". In other words, we do oppose some (many in fact) - the case-by-case assessment is something that must be down to the people directly involved - teachers and parents leading this process. That's why I think it so important that the NUT and local campaign organisations review the situation together and reach common positions. Of course if there is no real sustained falling roll situation in your school's area, we should fight to "save our school"

 

BUT ALSO, as you said at the meeting, any falling roll situation needs to be dealt with on a citywide basis. That must mean that it is not just the individual schools with falling rolls that will be affected. That is a Blairite concept of schools being isolated from each other. In fact each school is a part of the whole system. and so the approach to falling rolls must be systematic. Ideally, to reduce class size and increase funding for all systematically. But whatever its characteristics, there needs to be an overall plan, including all schools. That might mean that we collectively defend all schools as they are - but we must be aware of the result if we do without securing improvement in Pupil:Teacher Ratios or additional funding to support small schools. 'Surplus places' left in the system are encouraged by Government policy in order to promote competition between schools - and no "save our school" campaign should ignore that fact in my view.

 

But no situation like this is simple, straightforward or obvious. I am speaking without the detailed knowledge that only you and the local NUT have of the situation - so I urge you to make it a priority to explore this situation in all its complexity, and how to maximise opposition to the threat of trust schools overall, and to the concept of each school being concerned only with its own affairs, its own numbers, its own pupils and families. This latter way of thinking is often the basis of apparently very strong parental defence of individual schools - which appears progressive, but which needs to be encouraged to adopt a much wider approach if it is not to play into the hands of the Government whose strategy is to divide school from school. It can become very  reactionary - save our school, and let everyone else look after their own school.

 

In saying this I want to stress that I am making no references to your particular campaign, which is both a "save our school" campaign and and "anti-Trust and Academy" campaign at the same time - as I said before only you and other local people and organisations - such as the NUT - can make those judgements in the light of your detailed knowledge of the facts.

 

All the best

Bill

 

 

 

Back to Homepage

 

Return to Contents Page