Join the mailing list - keep the discussion going! Click HERE.

Yesterday I received the usual rejection by the DCSF of my Freedom of Information request seeking more information about the formal reasons for the rejection of the EoI by the governors at St Bernard's.

However, I did receive a series of very heavily redacted (blacked out) scans of email messages. I've gone through them with a fine tooth comb and, much to my surprise, new information has been disclosed which can now be placed in the public domain.

You can view all of the scanned emails I received by clicking HERE and browsing through the folders.

It's clear that behind the scenes, the Diocese and DCSF are beavering away on this project. Make no mistake. No news does not mean no activity!

The most interesting single scan is this one from 17 December 2009. It starts with a message from someone who knows which way the governing bodies at both St Joseph's and St Bernard's voted regarding the EoI and the reasons for the St Bernard's governors rejecting it. We can therefore speculate that it could be from someone from the Diocese. The email says:

The Governing Body at St Joseph's voted overwhelmingly in favour of the project - I seem to remember it was 10 (or 11?) to 1 but will confirm. The Governing Body at St Bernard's voted overwhelmingly against - 17 to 1. The reasons we were given for this vote were that St Bernard's consider BSF will solve all the problems at St Joseph's and somehow make it possible for St Joseph's to expand to any increase in the local Catholic population, and thus no Academy is necessary. They also have a problem with the proposed size of the College (too big). Both governing bodies will be writing to you giving the reasons for their decision so this can be considered with the Expression of Interest.

So, now we know that the very significant majority that John McAteer referred to in the Monday Letter of 25 January 2010 was 17 to 1. I'd say that this was an overwhelming rather than significant majority but there you are. We also know, for the first time, what the reasons for the rejection were. They centre around the money that is hopefully heading St Joseph's way from the BSF (Building Schools for the Future) fund.

What is just as interesting, in my opinion, is the reply to this message. We can see that the reply is from an email address ending in .gov.uk so I believe it to be from an official at the DCSF. Saleem Quazi is the Project Lead for this project so we can speculate that he is replying. He says:

In the interests of reducing paper, it is not required for GBs to send a letter to the DCSF setting out the reasons for/against.
I am not looking to reply to them!
Their stance will be reflected in the EoI and that is sufficient.

The clearly dismissive attitude of this unelected official is clear to see. Indeed, the author of the original message seems slightly surprised by the disdain demonstrated in this response and points out that the governors were not expecting a reply. That the DCSF should deign to reply to the governors is regarded by both parties to this exchange of emails as clearly out of the question!

Please feel free to browse through the other documents by clicking HERE. The reason some appear to be missing is that they contained no text, ie, totally redacted! Other points I found interesting were:

• TUPE (transfer of undertakings) is on the agenda - it seems that the Diocese may have to foot the bill in making teachers redundant since they are Diocese employees.
• It's pointed out by the DCSF that the governors don't need to be shown the draft EoI and it is agreed that they will not be shown it. Clearly the governors aren't trusted; yet more evidence of the contempt in which they are held.
• Work on the EoI was proceeding apace in October.
• An retired headteacher from the Northampton Diocese was recruited by the DCSF as a consultant to help with the EoI in October.
• Fiona Mactaggart, the Slough MP was concerned about the delay in the summer of 2009and wanted the project to proceed as soon as possible. Fiona, in the tradition of new Labour, was educated at Cheltenham Ladies' College.

To discuss this article, join our mailing list.