|
For those of you that were able to attend, the meeting at St Bernard's was very well supported by Parents. While both emotions and feelings were running high, and quite understandably, a number of valid and detailed points were addressed to The Parent Governor team and the main panel were Mr J. McAteer, Monsignor McGinnell and Mr H. McBrien.
The letter to both Mr McAteer and Monsignor McGinnell and accompanying questions on behalf of FaCT were not responded to directly. Following the meeting, the general opinion was felt that the majority of the questions raised were not answered with any detail that most parents did not know prior to the meeting. Clearly there are still a number of unanswered questions and clarifications as to why this proposal is being sought. Below is a brief summary of just a few points discussed and/or clarified: Mr McAteer advised that the panel would provide up to date, correct and accurate information that they have at this time. Mr McAteer confirmed that this was not a done deal and it was only a feasibility study. Monsignor McGinnell stated that his responsibility was to provide the best possible education to children from Slough parishes. He explained that the Diocese is looking to embark upon a feasibility study as the school (St Bernard's) is in need of major funding prior to funds becoming available through the government's Building Schools for the Future scheme in 2017. He said that applying for Academy status gave the "glint" of a chance to acquire that funding. He stressed that they have received no answer as to whether the feasibility study will be accepted. If it is accepted then the feasibility study would be funded by the government. Monsignor McGinnell expressed the view that there were very few funding options available, apart from the Academy funding. Mr McBrien quoted some figures concerning required funding but said that “these were out of date”. We did not have the opportunity to ask why these are out of date especially when a feasibility study has been sought. A feasibility study has been requested but no response was given when asked "had the Diocese carried out their own one (a study) based on their own proposals? The initial request for a feasibility study was rejected by the DCSF due to a good performance by St Joseph's. Further discussions in April 2008 between the Local Authority, the Diocese, the local Member of Parliament and representatives from BOTH schools and agreed, in principal, that permission was given by the DCSF to replace the two existing Catholic schools with one secondary school. The DCSF are subsequently funding this feasibility study on behalf of the Diocese. Mr McAteer advised that parents were not told at the time (and no time is a good time) as talks were only at an early stage. It was agreed to proceed with the proposal in April 2008 and parents were advised 6 months later. It was clarified that the Governing body did not see the final letter sent to the Local Authority albeit the letter stated that they agreed with the proposals. There was some ambiguity as to whether they had agreed to the proposals or that they had agreed to the idea of a feasibility study only. Mr McBrien started to read the letter but stopped at the commencement of paragraph 4. A possible solution is for a revised letter to be sent to the Local Authority from the Governing body that is clear and succinct as to what they have agreed to as a school governing body to avoid any misinterpretation of the facts. This is a question for the Governing body to ask and agree themselves. Monsignor McGinnell advised that his role is to have the best interests for the future of Catholic education within Slough up to at least 2020. The Monsignor also confirmed that as schools are state funded they are governed by Council boundaries that they fall within. Mr McAteer confirmed that any proposed new school would have Catholic faith as the first and foremost criteria. It was unclear as to whether this was by boundary as Monsignor McGinnell had advised so this would need clarifying if the proposal went ahead. It was raised from the floor that money had been put aside for St Bernard’s but the panel were not aware of this. This was possibly going to be checked.These are just a few points noted and no doubt copies of the full minutes with all responses given will be issued in due course. What happens next?
The parents have to decide how they wish to Campaign and what the aims of the campaign are. Is it against any feasibility study, merger or loss of Grammar status? Do parents oppose the idea of a 1500 place school? Where do parents stand as a point of law? Will a ballot have to be held to get the parents views? If the feasibility study proves favourable to the Diocese proposal, what happens next? Can it be stopped at that point? What recommendation do the Governing body have to either agree or reject the feasibility outcome? Is it best to take a ‘wait and see’ attitude and then act once the feasibility study (if it gets the go ahead) is published? Will this be too late to do anything? Over the next few days all parents should reflect on what they want to do in terms of what is best for our children. The Diocese is unequivocal in its stance that they have instigated this proposal to do what is best for Catholic education within Slough up to and beyond 2020. With regard to the Parent Governor voting – this is a personal matter and each parent/guardian should vote for the person that they feel would best represent them and their child on the Governing body. As there is much to digest and review an email will be sent next week to confirm a meeting date for all parents to explore further our aims.
Thank you
Campaign Committee
PS. The e-petition still needs your support so please keep it going. You may wish to discuss this evening’s meeting and the Campaign options with other parents. To comment on this article, go to our dedicated message board. |
