|
Back in July, St Bernard's published the Statement of Intent letter on their web site. We'd already published it here. Of more interest, they also published a letter from Frances Image to the DCSF dated 18 June 2009. Click here to view it. The letter explains why the sponsors (Slough Borough Council) and the co-sponsors (the Diocese) would prefer an opening date of 2013 for the new Academy, rather than, as proposed by the DCSF, 2011. Frances Image gives a few reasons for the request, the first of which is that if the numbers of pupils increased, St Joseph's would struggle to cope. The other reasons stated are that the Higher Education co-sponsor has only recently been appointed and that a delay would allow the governors to be consulted. It's interesting to speculate as to what this is all about. Unfortunately, it offers little hope to those of us opposed to the Academy.
The fact that the letter was sent by the Diocese seems to indicate that the objections to 2011 are coming primarily from the Diocese. As has been stated on this web site previously, the last thing the Diocese must want is to find itself in the situation of having abolished a grammar school but having no shiny, low maintenance new building. With an election due by June 2010 and spending cuts on the way, this scenario must be playing on the mind of Frances Image et al. The Diocese therefore wants to ensure it has its new building up front. However, the funding for the new building is linked to a legally binding agreement for the creation of an Academy. So, the death warrant for St Bernard's will have to be signed before work on the building starts. Frances Image refers to the question of admissions policy in her letter and says the delay in opening will allow more time to discuss such matters with the governors of both schools. The implication is therefore that academic selection will be retained at St Bernard's until 2013. The DCSF has had 2 months to reply to this letter. We shall make use of Freedom of Information legislation to obtain that reply. To discuss this article, join our mailing list. |
