Correspondence: Sharing outcomes of review of Hove Park School

From: Handsoffhoveparksch

To: “Head@hovepark.org.uk” <Head@hovepark.org.uk>, “mnicholls@hovepark.org.uk” <mnicholls@hovepark.org.uk>, “consultation@hovepark.org.uk” <consultation@hovepark.org.uk>, governors@hoveparksch.org.uk

Dear Mike Nicholls, Chair of Governors and Governing Body,

In the first  communication regarding academy status  sent to parents by Chair, Mike Nicholls, dated March 2014,  it was clearly stated that the Governing Body was conducting a review of the school where academistation was just one option to be considered.  Mr Nicholls stated: 

” During the review we will be looking at all of the options for the school and one of these is becoming an academy”.

Further to this, please can you explain the other options considered at part of this process? In particular, please explain the research that was carried out by SLT/Governing Body in the review  and how and when alternative options where dismissed in favour of academy status? Please also provide all statistical, financial and other evidence gathered to enable this process to have taken place.

We urge that the Governing Body share the research they carried out as part of this review. This would allow parents/carers to be reassured  that a thorough process has been undertaken on which to base decisions for the next few years but also beyond that, for when the current leadership moves on. As part of this research  other models/options must have obviously been considered and it would be good practice to share how and why these have been dismissed in favour of academisation as the proposal put forward by the school at this time? For example, models such as Tower Hamlets model (as raised at a recent consultation meeting) and the Co-operative schools model must have been considered by the Governing Body. It would be good for parents/carers to understand what you have found out about these ways of working and why they have been  put aside.

With minimum research  it is clear that alternative models exist and new ones are being created by truly innovative leaders.  Has HPS considered how it can become a truly innovative, progressive and forward-thinking school (with the full support and good will of parents/carers/teachers/students and the LA)  by working in proper partnerships with other local schools  rather than expecting other schools to adhere to the vision of one senior leadership team  and sucking them up, willingly or unwillingly, in to a MAT? The MAT approach reduces partnerships to a shared brand and drastically reduces choice for local families.

Is there any reason why the research conducted by the Governing Body as part of the review of HPS  cannot be presented /published in its entirety as part of the consultation on the HPS website?  This would go someway to reassuring parents/carers that HPS Governors are giving this matter, and ultimately any decision, on academisation the serious attention it deserves.

Hands Off Hove Park School, parents’/carers’ campaign  is now sharing and publishing all our questions/correspondence with HPS Governors (together with any responses)  on an open platform via our website handsoffhoveparkschool.wordpress.com . We are also using this platform to share debate and discussion on the academisation of local, community schools.  In the interests of transparency, we urge the HPS Governing Body to do the same.

Yours sincerely
Advertisements
This entry was posted in Correspondence with school and governors. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s