Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú

Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú BLOGS - Graham Smith's Blog
« Previous | Main | Next »

Stirrer? Moi?

Graham Smith | 13:29 UK time, Wednesday, 19 May 2010

Cornwall council cabinet member Mark Kaczmarek prompted a few smiles today when he gently suggested that "the media" (Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú Radio Cornwall) might have been "stirring it" while pursuing the story about capital funding for St Tudy school and the potential impact of this on Torpoint nursery and infants school.

I have to confess that the role of Torpoint school in the story turned out to be rather different to the one I had been expecting. Anyone reading the official report about St Tudy school, and noting the official concern about "serious risk" to Torpoint's £1.7million capital fund if the St Tudy project should proceed, might conclude that this was a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Only when I arrived at Torpoint did I discover that staff, governors and most parents didn't really want a new school anyway. They were mystified as to why it had taken four years for nothing to happen.

So when the facts change, so does the story and on Tuesday morning Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú Radio Cornwall listeners heard James Churchfield interview the vice chair of Torpoint governors, and the Cornwall council cabinet member for education Neil Burden, who agreed Torpoint had been a "red herring" and thought it ought not to have been in the official report about St Tudy at all.

Modesty (almost) prevents me from reporting that councillor Kaczmarek also paid tribute to the role of the media in explaining accurately the true situation. Cabinet members subsequently voted unanimously to progress the St Tudy project.

Comments

  • Comment number 1.

    you seem very pleased with yourselves, but did you also explain the issue of building surplus places and that the St Tudy proposals will compromise Cornwall Council's capital programme more widely? The other "red risks" in the report are harder to explain and might not be as sexy but they potentially affect far more children. Are we officially ditching the primary strategy? Is all education policy in the Authority now on a case by case (whose councillor will tweet loudest) basis? Will this be another case of a judicial review when those risks come home to roost?

  • Comment number 2.

    These are all good points, and as I noted in my earlier posting, the official report on St Tudy contained 58 paragraphs which mostly argued the case for NOT building a new school. It is nevertheless a mystery as to why capital was tied up with Torpoint for more four years.

  • Comment number 3.



    Compadre-The Primary strategy was written after I believe the whole St Tudy school situation started, this has been going around since 2005 and if things had been done differently by the Council and Diocese the strategy wouldn't be being discussed as a new school would have been in use by now.
    You mention other "Red Risks" I presume that you are referring to creating surplus places and the possible affect on surrounding schools. If you look at the surrounding schools, two have huge amounts of surplus places already on paper, St Breward had 61% and Blisland 48% (even the formula for that is biased towards larger schools as 3 pupils in smaller schools can make up 10% ) at the time of the last school census (Dec 2009) St Tudy has none. I feel that these figures show that St Tudy school may already have had a significant affects on surrounding schools due to it's reputation (?) and would only have a further negligible affect if a new school was to be built. The strategy could never stop parents voting with their feet and the hot school of the year may become the empty school in time, no complicated formula will predict a dislike to a head or a teacher that may prompt migration. I think that they need to address in the strategy that one size fits all, small rural schools don't, they tend to be the heart of a village, they are more than places to be taught.
    As Graham has said, Torpoint did not want or felt they needed a new school (how did they get to be number 1 then? and were they ever the school in the worst condition?) I sat in the Cabinet meeting on Wednesday and listened to an officer say he was planning to use the 1.7 million on feasibility etc for a new school for Torpoint, fine you may think but, the school would cost around 7 million to build and with budgets not set and no doubt when they are set in Dec 2010 will be cut, there is no guarantee that there would be sufficient funds coming down from central government to ever build Torpoint a new school, wouldn't that then be a huge gamble with tax payers money undertaking a feasibility for something that they may never have the money to pay for? at least this way we should get some bricks and mortar with it!
    I think between "tweeting" you will find that the local member has put considerably amount of time and effort into achieving to where we are from Wednesday, no one thinks we will get a new school tomorrow but we are definitely nearer than we were Tuesday!
    And Graham stiring? no, I think he just asked the question someone from the Council should have asked years ago...(They were probably trying to work out the formula on when to ask a school if it needs a new school, they would have probably got around to speaking to Torpoint sometime in 2015!)

Ìý

Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú iD

Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú navigation

Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú © 2014 The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.