Comments on Future of Dunmore Schools (Oxfordshire Liberal Democrats)

Oxfordshire Liberal Democrats <info@oxfordshirelibdems.org.uk>

Comments on Future of Dunmore Schools

January 16, 2007 12:28 PM
By Cllr Alan Bryden in County Cabinet

I am here as local member, since the schools are in my division. My children went to both Dunmore Schools about 25 years ago, and I have been a governor of Fitzharrys School for more than 10 years. . I have never had so many letters and e-mails on any topic before.

I shall speak mostly about the 3-19 option. First point - a lot of people jumped to the conclusion that the County was pushing this option with a view to selling off land for building as it is well known locally that there is tremendous pressure for more housing. Comments about rationalising use of the shared sites of the schools did not help. There were all sorts of rumours about surveyors being seen on the Dunmore site. I did my best to reject that view in my replies.

Second point - I felt that the complex transition between the primary and secondary schools in Abingdon did not seem to be properly addressed in the consultation. Combine Dunmore and Fitzharrys, but more children from Dunmore go to John Mason School than to Fitzharrys, whereas well over half the children at Thomas Reade (in Cllr Legge's division where my wife is a governor) go to Fitzharrys. The consultation did not give any information about the working of a 3-19 school in which most of the children leave at year 6, and the vast majority of children in year 7 have come in from outside. The model may allow innovative curriculum development in Our Lady's Junior and Senior School (also in my division), but I don't see how it will work in the state sector in Abingdon.

Third point - many parents were incensed by the unequal treatment of Dunmore Infants and Fitzharrys. They called for equal treatment between these schools - if you are going to close Dunmore Infants to create a primary school, then you should close Fitzharrys to create a 3-19 school. There is some confusion about possible Foundation status in the options. My understanding is that a new primary school would still be in LA control, but in closing Fitzharrys to create a 3-19 school; the new school would have to be offered for Foundation status. However if Fitzharrys were to be extended downwards as in Option 2, that would still be under LA control. Please clarify. If that is correct then it is a pity the difference in treatment was not made clear at the outset, as it may have saved a lot parental anger and adverse comments directed at Fitzharrys school.

I hope you will support the recommendations. I am pleased that option 2 is recommended for removal, and that detailed discussions are now taking place with the governing bodies of both schools. Again it is a pity that these discussions did not take place before the options for consultation were chosen. A specific question- is that option for Federation actually allowed by the recommendations which refer specifically to a primary school?

Finally I refer you to the latest exam results for Dunmore Junior taken in May last year at the height of all the recent problems. It was ranked about 78th out of 189 schools whose KS2 results were given recently. The Value Added is 100, exactly what is expected. I (like many other people) cannot understand how it can be regarded as a failing school. There are problems, but the treatment has made things much worse and caused lots of anguish in the community.