|
|
 |
| |
How can they demolish a school for deaf children?
• HOW can Camden demolish Frank Barnes School for Deaf Children?
Your report (Relocation Plans for Deaf Pupil, September 13) stated that it was being relocated “to make way for a brand new secondary school”.
But the new school is being built on the site next door.
One prediction from Camden’s children, schools and families division was for development of a high rise block of flats on the Frank Barnes site.
How in all conscience can Camden knock down a school for disabled children to profit from a block of luxury flats?
The relocation plans involve savage cuts to Frank Barnes School. Its current and future children will suffer a diminished education.
Frank Barnes is an award-winning primary school for deaf children, purpose-built by Camden in the 1970s. The best option for Frank Barnes School is to stay where it is.
STEVE MCKERNAN
Needham Terrace, NW2
Opportunity
• CAMDEN now has the opportunity to set up a new secondary school, an institution that will meet the needs of generations of pupils.
These are not opportunities that come along very often, and a decision on the nature of the school, how it should be run and by whom, as well as its location, should be carefully considered with full public consultation.
Instead the council has rushed to locate it in an area where there’s little evidence of demand for a new school; has rushed into a structure, an academy, that is entirely new to Camden; and rushed into a “sponsor”, University College London, without any contest or competition.
After having apparently made the decision, the council has held a series of consultative meetings, and it is clear from them that no one – not parents, not educators, not many councillors – are happy with these rushed decisions.
It is clearly time to rethink and properly study where in the borough there is a need for the school (or schools, given the evidence that smaller schools provide happier, more effective educational environments) and consider how and by whom this school should be run.
All those with different views on what this school should be like and who should run it should be given a chance to put their case.
In the Green Party, though our preference is for a community structure, we want to see an open competition which would allow the case for a community school to be put forward but also, very importantly, that other options can also be put forward and fairly and thoroughly considered.
This will be a school to serve pupils for the next century. We must take the time to get it right.
CLLR MAYA DE SOUZA
Green Party, Highgate
Open debate
• I WOULD like to add my voice, as a parent of a child in one of Camden’s existing secondary schools, to the debate about the new school.
There has been a failure to consult residents on whether an academy, a community or a church-run school is wanted or, if an academy, who should be the sponsor.
Instead the Liberal Democrats and Tories in charge of Camden have decided to choose University College London first and then consult later!
The public meetings that that have taken place show strong support for a school run by either the community or church; these opinions and views need to be heard and all options carefully considered. Therefore we must have an open competition.
It is good that UCL want to be involved, but we should be considering all our local children, and ensuring that we are not draining away the talent to a single school. I would like to see good very good local schools for all, which means taking into account the impact of an academy school on other schools.
I am in support of an open competition process to decide the outcome of this debate. I hope that Camden’s Liberal Democrat and Tory councillors will recognise the importance of ensuring that the other options are considered and that they will be supporting the Labour/Green motion to be heard on November 5 for an open competition for a new school.
RACHEL ZATZ
Maiden Lane, NW1
|
 |
|
| |
|
|
|
