LinkBack URL
About LinkBackshttp://www.thisisleicestershire.co.u...=sidebarsearch
Just in case no one had said....
The thing we all knew was coming. County has given go ahead to formulate a plan to merge high and upper schools here is to 5 years of fun...
Russell
http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.u...=sidebarsearch
Just in case no one had said....
The thing we all knew was coming. County has given go ahead to formulate a plan to merge high and upper schools here is to 5 years of fun...
Russell
Hmmm I see your LEA have had the balls to go through with it, up here in Yorkshire we have the same sort of system - Primary (to age 10) Middle (to age 13) and then High / College (through to 16/18) and they spent many many months reviewing (and probably many thousands of pounds) and thinking about doing something and trying to work it out and see if there was something better which I'm sure some did feel, but in the end it litterally fizzled away and vanished not to be really heard of again, well i'm sure it does get mentioned but it has sort of been left alone as the system was to see how it goes I think with more forcing of colaberation between the 3 types of school.
I know some of the primary heads felt primary / secondary was a much better idea and system, or if they kept the middle to move the age groups so you did all of KS2 in Primary and then KS3 in the Middle and then KS4+ at High / College whch made a bit more sense in terms of movement for exams, but I'm not an expert on these things, except it made people think about jobs etc, I know I certainly didn't want to be part of the school that would potentially, if they did the 2 school structure, be the one that vanished.
H John
Well latter system is what we have currently upto year 6 in primary, 7,8 and 9 at high school and 10,11,12,13 and the upper school.
They have started to trail this one part of county so we all knew it was going to happen just matter of time.
But it is case of this won't happen until 2013 when bsf comes to town so as said got 5 years of fun and games.. It all about pupil numbers now baby and making sure that your school would be missed if closed down.
Russ
That's interesting.. round here Primary (upto year 6) and secondary (upto year 13) is the norm. Didnt know they had "middle" schools still
I could not get the link to work but I think I can guess what this is about from the posts.
Worcestershire LEA (where I live rather than work so not an expert on the full details) is just coming to the end of this process with this being the first acedemic year of the new schools.
The biggest impact seems to be around the fact that the middle schools all closed, so all the staff had to find new jobs. In theory there were exactly the same number of teaching posts in the new schools as the old - but less headships and presumably as there are 30% less networks that means 30% less network managers.
I can definately see the argument that changing schools at the end of a key stage is nice and clean - although I wonder whether it is more likely to encourage practices to inflate possible results.
Yup it was also down to that as well, some primarys would have had single figure pupil numbers or very very low double figures.Originally Posted by russdev
But with the BSF who knows they may change there minds again between now and then
Northampton got rid of their middle schools a few years back ... and we still have the remnants of a chunk of PFI work going on as a result.
In Leicestershire biggest issue is down to gcse results we have great ks3 results but in two years the gcse results go down to average.
There is lot of benefits to primary/through secondary system starting year 10 in year for example.
Thing is nobody at moment knows how going to work so not simple as closing middle schools down due to nature and layout of county the fact that some upper schools can't expand due to lack of space etc etc.
Know as for jobs it depends some schools might stay as satellite places which means need same staff both teachers, support and slt.
On other hand this one area were if played right bsf will be advantage as while some people will have to reapply for jobs but if ict staff are tuped across then jobs got more security due to fact that will happen before schools are merged...
But it does mean game of political playing for 5 years which is why I am going to get the ict support network meetings started. I am meeting with few key people in lea next few weeks to get there support in starting it.
Interestingly model they did in Melton is to expand high schools and reduce the upper schools to make them 6th colleges. They think that this is model they plan to use for rest of county if they can.
Anyway we are outstanding school in all areas (Ofsted say we are) so we have nothing to worry about
Russ
Not necessarily a done deal (although most likely will be) - I know of one area where there are three secondary schools - one outstanding one average and one below par. You would, therefore, think it was straight a straight forward choice about which one to close.
However, out of the three schools, two of them have conditions on the lease of the land that say they can only be used as schools / educational establishments. The outstanding school, being the only one where the land it not tied, is therefore the most likely to close because then they can make profit / take advantage out of the land.
This is a pretty extreme example - but it is not always just down to school performance (although you can be pretty sure of which school's staff are most likely to be keeping their jobs - including the headteachers!)
I know in Worcestershire the restructuring is coinciding with the rebuilding of many of the primary schools, another trick seems to be reducing the intake numbers so they will eventually end up with the same number of pupils in the school but they stay for longer, using the closed middle schools as new, smaller primary schools.
What you have to remember ultimately is that there are still exactly the same number of pupils that have to be educated, which means the same levels of funding and generally the same levels of teaching staff.
It is most likely to effect the management layers within a school - less Headteachers, but possibly the same number of Deputy Head Teachers, less Heads of Departments and less Heads of Year but possibly the introduction of Deputy HOD and HOY's.
I would imaging the overall number of IT Technical staff will remain about the same - perhaps the opportunity being taken to get rid of non performers. But overall the number of IT technical managers could reduce.
In Birmingham they have a program of taking seperate Junior and Infant schools and merging them to make primary schools wherever possible. Generally this is when one of the two headteachers leave or retire so the only impact is on positions like IT Coordinator, Special needs coordinator where two need to become one.
@limbo I was being slightly sarcastic sorry...
No nothing is done deal anyway we got year of consultation and planning then lea has to get government approval....
But schools that promote themselves well, will be missed if closed down and are classed as an outstanding school....did I say ofsted said we where outstanding in all areas; Will be ones they will try and keep.
As it is 5 years down line lot of the jobs that need to get rid off will be lost by not replacing staff who leave etc..
Anyway as always I have a plan
Russell
This is going to get competitive and completely off topic - anyone would think we care about this stuff!
We may not have got outstanding in all areas but, and I think this is pretty unusual, the IT Support department get several mentions, particularly a lot of the systems that we have put together - even the website gets a mention:-
Yes indeed - and its been a right 'mare :?
Poole has just gone through this process - we have a very mixed system (due to unitary authorities appearing etc) where we have most schools change at 12, one at 13 as well as two grammars, three secondary moderns and one proper comprehensive!
The council wanted to make it all the same system, changing at 11 which, unlike what you are saying Russ, is a strange choice as the one 9-13 middle school is the best performing school in the year 6 SATS in the area, and the true comprehensive it feed into rivals the grammars at the top of the results and is in the best 150 in the country. Of course they wouldnt get rid of the grammars either.
After goodness knows how much money and time, they have decided to do it in 2012, except for the 9-13 pyramid which is to be left to rot until they can find a source for the money the comprehensive will need for the alterations necessary to take in 2 extra years, not just 1 like the others. It seems very short-sighted to do what may well ruin the best two schools in the area (barring the grammars), doesnt it?
What's more - I remember when they started changing at 12 and 13 - they said it was because it had been proved that children do better as they are more mature - what happened to that then?
Private schools have always changed at 13 and look at the results they get. Personally I think that tinkering with the age ranges is NOT the answer - what matters is pupil/teacher ratio and facilities for education.
Excuse the rant - I am a governor of both the middle and the upper school in question and we really feel abandoned by the local authority
Calm downThis is going to get competitive and completely off topic - anyone would think we care about this stuff!
We may not have got outstanding in all areas but, and I think this is pretty unusual, the IT Support department get several mentions, particularly a lot of the systems that we have put together - even the website gets a mention:-
Sorry again I was doing bad attempt at humour hence the smiley was trying to show what going to be like for next 5 years which it is sad state of affairs but schools will be competing against each other...
Russ
I got that you were being humourous, was going for "friendly banter"
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote