|
|
 |
| |
Time for talking about school is long overdue
• YOU report on growing suspicions that a city academy plan is being hatched with University College London as sponsor (Is a city academy plan being hatched? June 28). Yet there has been no public discussion about such a school.
With Camden’s own consultation meetings already at an end and a decision expected about the new school next month, the time for this discussion is long overdue.
The decision about any new secondary school in Camden must be about securing excellence for generations to come. We note that the existing provost of UCL has expressed an interest in sponsoring an academy but what will happen if he moves to another job?
Will the commitment to the school cease?
If UCL were to sponsor the school, UCL lecturers would need to offer support and active involvement for the sponsorship to make a tangible difference to pupils. How do they feel about this? Who would fund their involvement?
We hope that UCL does have a real interest in secondary level education in Camden.
But this would be more valuable if deployed throughout all Camden secondary schools in terms of raising aspiration for higher education pathways.
There is nothing to preclude any university joining existing voluntary aided or community school governing bodies as sponsors.
Indeed many schools might welcome this. Is it fair for any university to ‘favour’ one school, especially since the new Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, has made it clear he would like to see all schools having a higher education institution ‘partner’.
While we acknowledge UCL’s success as a higher education institution with a clear record of helping bright students excel academically, we nevertheless question to what extent catering to the academic needs of able young adults is preparation for meeting the social and pastoral needs of children from the age of 11 in an inclusive school, for managing behaviour of children from a wide range of backgrounds and for meeting the needs of children with moderate and severe learning difficulties.
Any new secondary school in Camden would be required to promote all the Every Child Matters outcomes and make full use of extended services for children and their families.
It would also be required to work in collaboration with other local schools and colleges, not least to ensure young people have full access to a wide range of learning opportunities and courses at ages 14-19, some of which may not have their foundations in the academic curriculum.
However, the Russell Group of universities, which includes UCL, has thus far refused to commit to accepting the new post-14 specialised diplomas for entry to their courses. Can we be sure that UCL would be equally committed to giving more practical and vocational qualifications equal status in any school of whose governing body it had majority control?
New rules surrounding academies require that the sponsor contributes £2 million over five years. Is it right to use money which was presumably intended for teaching tertiary students to provide this endowment?
If UCL does not provide the money, who will?
Before Camden makes its decision, this debate must be opened up to include discussion about UCL’s financial interests, the long-term future of a partnership such as this one, and whether this really would be the best solution for teaching and learning in Camden. Until these questions are addressed publicly, the case for a UCL sponsored school remains unproven.
The answers to many of these questions would be publicly aired in the course of a fair competition in which UCL’s record in secondary education and proposals could be judged against other bidders such as a CofE school and the local authority.
A competition is the best way to get the best result for Camden’s children.
FIONA MILLAR
Campaign for
State Education
Penny Roberts
Campaign for a Church Secondary School for Camden
• Your editorial comment of June 28 was spot on (It feels like we’re at war with our politicians). There is indeed a sham consultation taking place all over the borough.
This is about more than just the location of a new secondary school. When will the
council begins to take note of what kind of new school we parents want for Camden (wherever it is built)?
Supporters of the Church of England bid recently presented a huge petition to the council.
How did councillors react?
Only with a continued refusal to commit themselves to a competition to find the best bid for the school and a continued refusal to talk to the Church of England about what they might have to offer to the children of Camden. If they were asking for a back-room stitch-up job then I would understand Camden’s reluctance, but they are not.All they ask is that councillors consider the Church proposals. If the petition was on behalf of an organisation that doesn’t run any schools and has no track record then I would understand their
reluctance, but it was not. The Church has a great track record at primary and
secondary level.If Camden decides not to run a fair, open competition and instead announces a decision in favour of an organisation with no visible community
support or track record for running schools, we will know that thousands of pounds have been wasted on a sham consultation and that our politicians care more about
finding the easiest option for themselves than they do for providing the best for our
children.
G E NAGY
Narcissus Road, NW6
• AS elected representatives for Kilburn ward, we want to dispel the myth that it is only the south of the borough where Camden children have difficulty accessing Camden secondary schools.
This is quite wrong. Many children across Camden, including many Kilburn children, currently face great difficulties securing places in Camden secondary schools.
Last September only 35 per cent of Kilburn children were offered a place at a Camden secondary school, the lowest figure for any ward in Camden.
The provision of well over 1,000 new secondary school places will benefit all Camden’s children, wherever they live. The reason that the partnership administration currently favours the Adelaide Road site for the new school is because it is the only suitable site that meets the government’s tests of availability and affordability.
We are very sympathetic to the calls for additional provision south of the Euston Road, but that debate should not stand in the way of Camden securing desperately needed investment in education for all the borough’s children.
DAVID ABRAHAMS
Janet Grauberg
James King
Liberal Democrat councillors for Kilburn Ward
|
 |
|
| |
|
|
|
