1.1What Is This Report About?

Hertfordshire County Council
Stevenage Primary Review
Discussion meetings with parents
FINAL REPORT
23rd February 2005
.
Urbancanda, Unit 10 Hill House, 14 Mallow Street, London EC1Y 8RQ
Tel: 020 7253 3916 Fax: 020 7253 9805

1.Introduction

1.1What is this report about?

This report has been written by independent facilitators engaged by Hertfordshire County Council to run four 2 hour meetings with parents to discuss the proposal in the ‘South Stevenage primary schools : New Proposals” document, issued in January 2005. The meetings were held on :

3 February, 7-9pm at Shephall Green Infant School

7 February, 7-9pm at Shephall Green Infant School

8 February, 4-6pm at Longmeadow Infant School

9 February, 7-9pm at Longmeadow Infant School

This report aims to provide an accurate and objective account of the views expressed at the meeting.

2.Designing the Event

2.1What was the aim of the event?

In response to its previous consultation, Hertfordshire County Council has brought forward three proposals for South Stevenage which meet the County Council’s criteria for evaluating school reorganisation proposals. They wanted to provide an opportunity for parents to ask questions about the proposals and express their views on the options.

2.2How was it organised?

The Children, Schools and Families Directorate worked with the independent facilitators to agree a programme for the meetings. The process included the following key components:

Participants. Parents from Longmeadow Infant School, Longmeadow Junior School, Shephall Green Infant School and Burydale Junior School were invited to attend. They were asked to book a place at one of the meetings. Numbers were restricted to about 50 per meeting to ensure parents had an opportunity to express their views and have their questions answered. None of the meetings were oversubscribed.

Programme. The programme for the meetings was designed to ensure all parents who attended had the most up to date information available and that the majority of the time available at the meetings was given over to questions and answers from the floor.

2.3Who attended?

A total of xxx individuals booked places at the meetings. Some participants attended more than one meeting.

3.The Event

3.1 What actually happened at the meetings?

The programme for the discussions with parents is set out below. A range of Hertfordshire County Council officers and advisers were present at each meeting to answer questions.

Programme

Welcome and introductions (5 minutes)

Sharon Wright, Urbancanda (Independent facilitator)

Presentation on current position (15 minutes)

John Harris, Director, Children, Schools and Families, Hertfordshire County Council (8 and 9 February)

Justin Donovan, Deputy Director, Children, Schools and Families, Hertfordshire County Council (3 and 7 February)

Questions and Answers (90 minutes)

Facilitated by Sharon Wright, Urbancanda

Closing comments (10 minutes)

John Harris/Justin Donovan

4.Summary of issues raised in discussion

Parents asked a number of questions for clarification, and raised a number of issues about the County Council’s options which they wished to have considered.

Issues relation to all three options

Parents asked for more information about the proposed building work necessary under each of the options. In particular, they had concerns about health and safety while building work was being undertaken. They wanted to know that their children would not be exposed to risk and that, for example, all contractors would be police checked before being allowed on school sites;
Work involved with removing asbestos was raised as a concern by parents at two of the meetings. They sought assurances that this work would not put children, staff and the community at risk;
At one meeting, parents expressed a wish to retain some features of the existing sites, for example the sensory garden and nature area at Shephall Green Infant School, and asked to be consulted on how best this could be achieved;
Traffic was raised as an ongoing concern. There was a feeling amongst parents that traffic management would continue to be a problem under any of the proposed options. Parents were also concerned about access for contractor vehicles to the site during the building phase and the adverse impact this might have on traffic flow in the local area;
Strong concerns were expressed about the impact of change on staff and pupils at each of the schools. Parents wanted a good deal more information on how transitional arrangements under the options would be handled. In particular, parents sought information on how the culture and ethos of each of the existing schools, which parents very much valued, would be retained under the proposed options;
Parents questioned whether the proposed options fully took account of prospective population growth in the South Stevenage area in the future;
Parents at one meeting expressed strong concerns about the potential for large class sizes under the options being proposed, which they were very much against. They also expressed their opposition to any option which would result in mixed age classes.

Option 1

To create a federation of two primary schools, one for 210 pupils on the Burydale site and one for 420 pupils on the Longmeadow site with either (a) separate foundation units for each school or (b) a joint 3 f.e. foundation unit for the federation.

Parents did not dismiss this option, but wanted to discuss the detail of how it might operate. At the meetings parents raised the following points :

They asked for clarification on whether the Federation model was simply a 3 f.e. school in disguise, and whether it was a ‘stepping stone’ to creating a 3 f.e. school at some point in the future;
They expressed concern about the lack of detail in relation to senior management arrangements for the new school. They wanted to know, for example, who would be ultimately responsible for aspects of the management of the Federation specifically what the Head of Federation would be accountable for. Parents also questioned whether the role of Federation Head should be as Project Manager function, rather than an educational position;
Parents wanted more detail on how the Federation would be resourced and how the resources would be used between the two schools. They asked, for example, whether the two schools would have to share facilities and equipment;
Parents wanted to know what would happen at the end of the proposed 3 year transitional period. They were unclear about the possible ways forward at this point and asked for more information;
Parents asked for more information about how the Federation Governing Body would be constituted. Several participants expressed serious concerns about whether it would be possible to recruit and retain high quality Governors to the Governing Body of the Federation. They saw this as a challenging role and were very worried about whether people would be willing to make the necessary commitment;
Some parents were concerned that Federations were largely at pilot stage around the country and felt the evidence base on the positive impact of Federating schools was not convincing;
Several parents expressed strong concern that a ‘soft’ federation option had not been discussed with parents or put forward by Hertfordshire County Council as an option in the consultation document. Some parents across the meetings expressed a preference for a model of two schools, two heads, 2 Governing Bodies and an Executive Committee overseeing co-operation between the schools.

Foundation Unit

Parents expressed a preference, across the meetings, for separate foundation units for the two schools in the Federation.
One person suggested a new joint building for the new schools, but with separate classes for the 2fe and 1fe schools. This would allow the children and staff to benefit from joint resources, but provide continuity of transition between phases.

Timescales

There were mixed views about the proposed timescales. It was agreed that uncertainty was unsettling, and some participants expressed a preference for a 2005 start indicating that if a Federation were to go ahead, there would be benefits to it starting quickly. Others argued strongly that it would take time to recruit high quality senior managers with the right skills, and to understand and cultivate the ethos in each of the Federation schools. They felt a 2006 start date would be a better option. There was no clear consensus on this issue across the meetings.

Option 2

To create a Federation of the existing three form of entry Longmeadow Infant and junior Schools, on the Longmeadow/Burydale site, and the closure of Shephall Green Infant and Nursery and Burydale Junior Schools.

Parents expressed concerns that this proposal was too similar to Option 3. There was no support for this option at any of the meetings.

Option 3

The County Council’s original proposal to create a single 630 pupil primary school plus nursery on the same site with either (a) a newly built block for the foundation stage or (b) refurbished existing accommodation for the foundation stage.

Parents did not wish to discuss this option at the meetings. There was no support for this option at any of the meetings.

Issues to do with the consultation process

Several parents expressed concerns about the consultation process. One said the consultation document was not user friendly, and questioned why there was no option on the response form for parents to say they did not agree with any of the proposed ways forward;
Several parents also asked why the ‘soft’ federation option had not been consulted on.

Evaluation of the Event

This section outlines how participants evaluated the event. It also sets out the additional issues raised by participants in their comment and evaluation forms.

5.1 Evaluation Overview

The table below provides a summary of the evaluation forms completed and returned for analysis. 18 evaluation sheets were completed in total, but not all respondents answered every question.

Table 1Evaluation Summary

Question / Very Good / Quite Good / Quite Poor / Very Poor / Total response
The invitation process / 2
(13%) / 12
(75%) / 1
(6%) / 1
(6%) / 16
Finding and getting to the venue / 9
(60%) / 6
(40%) / 0 / 0 / 15
Reception and welcome on arrival / 12
(75%) / 3
(19%) / 1
(6%) / 0 / 16
Overall standard of the venue / 10
(59%) / 7
(41%) / 0 / 0 / 17
Refreshments / 9
(64%) / 5
(36%) / 0 / 0 / 14
The presentation / 6
(38%) / 10
(62%) / 0 / 0 / 16
The quality of the discussion / 8
(50%) / 8
(50%) / 0 / 0 / 16
The mix of participants overall / 9
(56%) / 7
(44%) / 0 / 0 / 16
The amount of time given for discussion / 11
(65%) / 5
(29%) / 1
(6%) / 0 / 17
The facilitation by Sharon Wright / 15
(94%) / 0 / 0 / 1
(6%) / 16

5.2Comments and recommendations

While those who responded on the evaluation questionnaires were generally supportive of the meetings and felt they had had an opportunity to ask questions and be listened to, several commented on the complexity of the booking arrangements for the meetings, and the need for more detail on the issues raised at Section 4, above. Completed comments sheets reinforced the points made above.