School Closure Debate

I was disappointed, if not surprised, by the level of misinformation being given to parents. It is entirely mischievous and certainly it was not in the spirit of, or conducive to good public service. They were too numerous to detail here but here are three examples:

* It was stated that the GBs (governing boards) of Hurworth and Eastbourne voted unanimously (and by implication enthusiastically) for the take- over of Eastbourne by Hurworth. I have seen the minutes of both GBs and they did not vote either for that, or in that manner.

* A glossy leaflet sets out the success of academies. The information is not empirically based and I am reminded of Charles Clarke's refreshing honesty in July 2004 when he accepted that the City Academy initiative was being expanded in "hope rather than evidence". Evidence of the success of academies may be found in differential intake as evidenced by the University of York (references available on request). Also how many teachers could be put directly into classrooms for the cost of the Local Authorities Academy Team.

* An assurance was given that the school populations of Hurworth and Eastbourne would be secured a place at a new academy in 2009. The LEAs own figures set a projected school population of 1,251 for both schools (assuming nothing else changes) at that time.

This is 51 over the admission limit of 1,200 and if there is a three per cent increase in the birth rate, then this number is 89. Where are the Local Authority proposing to "cleanse" these children to? - Martin Phillips, Darlington.

COMMON SENSE : HAVING attended a number of the consultations and read many of the letters in the papers, I would have to say that the proposal to build a new school using the Government's Academy fund is the only common sense proposal.

While it would obviously have an affect on the village of Hurworth, the only other options would appear to be do nothing, which would make matters worse for both schools; or bus over 700 children to Hurworth at great cost.

This cost would not only be in terms of cash, but also socially, by setting parent against parent looking to be among the lucky 250, denying some of the most deprived areas in Darlington: Eastbourne, Lascelles, Bank Top, Lingfield and Skerne Park of a marvellous new facility, and reducing the monies available to bring other schools up to an acceptable standard.

What has been puzzling me is why the governors of Hurworth changed their minds over the proposed changes after being in favour of them to start with. What exactly is it about the word "academy" that led them to change their minds? I think this would be of help to the debate, as to most people this is just about building a new school for our children. - David Preston, Darlington.

SORRY TALE: I WAS very disappointed to read your article in today's paper regarding the Academy Information session held at Eastbourne School on Wednesday night. I feel that you are misleading the public in what you write. Darlington is not behind an academy at all. It is the complete opposite and this has been proved at all the information sessions where there has been little or no support for an academy in Darlington.

Next to no parents even bothered to turn up at the public meeting and the majority who were there had connections with the council.

Considering there are 2,000 children living in the Eastbourne area, you would have thought there would have been a major turnout.

I only hope that the council does not come to its usual decision by saying, "because only a small amount turned up, this means all those who did not turn up must be for an academy."

The views of the people it directly affects, ie the people of the surrounding villages of Hurworth School should be at the forefront to lead the way and close this sorry tale. Enough damage has been done. I hope that Sheila Bamber has seen enough to say this is not the right move.

On a final note to the council, I would like to say, what goes around comes around. - Julie Jones, Hurworth.

JENNY'S VIEW: AT the meeting at Eastbourne regarding the proposed academy, my daughter, Jenny who is 11, stood up and asked Margaret Askwith why it had to be Hurworth that was involved and not one of the other town schools.

Ms Askwith's response was "come and talk to me after the meeting". Why could she not have answered this in the meeting. I am sure there are a lot of other people who also do not understand why these two schools were chosen.

After the meeting, Ms Askwith told Jenny that the schools were chosen because they needed a lot of work done on them. Do the other schools not need any work? Hasn't the council already secured funding for repairs on other schools?

Another reason given was that most of the children at Hurworth School don't live in Hurworth. Has this not always been the case? When I attended the school in the 1970s-1980s, a lot of my classmates came from Darlington including the Eastbourne area. Ms Askwith did not look Jenny in the face while answering, she looked at the floor, her feet, basically anywhere else.

Jenny tried again to ask why it had to be Hurworth and was told that "seeing as she was only 11 she wouldn't be able to understand". How patronising, especially coming from someone who is part of the Education Service.

Surely it is Ms Askwith's job to make sure that the children understand why they have to move from a village school to one on an industrial site near one of the busiest roads entering Darlington.

After speaking with Jenny, Ms Askwith turned to my mother and said "you have a very clever and confident grandchild".

From anyone else this would have been a compliment, but I feel that she could have said this to Jenny instead of talking over her. - Louise Richmond, Hurworth.

DESPERATE: THE plea from J Black to Eastbourne parents (HAS, Jan 30) to voice support for the council's academy is a clear indication of how desperate they have become.

It has become apparent to Share and its supporters that the academy lacks any backing by the people of Darlington, with the council being forced into filling its own information sessions with councillors, employees and representatives of affiliate groups, in order to give any impression of support.

Share is of course attending all information sessions as it is our school they intend to close, but contrary to council propaganda, this is not a Hurworth group, but one made up of people from right across the schools catchment area.

However, we do welcome J Black's plea for a greater turnout, as Share is very keen to ensure that the facts are made available to as many people as possible, and to ask how any council can suggest improving a towns education provision by closing its best school. - Ian Holme, Hurworth.

TWO ISSUES: There are two issues that are running concurrently and are not linked, except in the council's view, which has led everyone to link them in ensuing debate. Firstly: Is it desirable to have an academy in Darlington? Secondly: Is it desirable to close the top-performing school in the borough?

The first question may need much debate, but how can the second question need any debate at all? What a clever ploy to link the two together so that any objection to the closure of the top performing school is thereby against the proposed academy and easy to label as elitism. At the same time, any support for an academy is taken as support for the closure of Hurworth School. Combine the issues to divide and rule.

If two schools must be closed to support an academy, and if it is believed that such an academy will be an improvement, then closing two existing schools may be necessary - what logic determines that one of them should be the best performing school?

If the logic is the transfer of excellence from Hurworth School to the academy, then the council can rely on the lack of goodwill it has engendered to do little towards that aim. - Garry Reeves, Darlington.

"RAILROADING": RECENT months have seen unparalleled opposition to Darlington Borough Council on a multitude of issues, from High Row, The White Horse to Hurworth School.

What links all of these is the common complaint that the council ignores the wishes of the people of Darlington, "railroading" through their preferred option, irrespective of public opinion.

How would any responsible, accountable council behave in the face of such opposition, so fairly and accurately reported in the Echo and other local press?

Take on board public opinion and correct their policies accordingly?

Behave in an open, truthful and transparent manner, fully engaging with their electorate? Not at Darlington Borough Council.

No, their response is to hire another couple of PR people (at our expense) because it is obviously just bad PR that the people of Darlington do not agree with their many visions, (be they on education or the Pedestrian Heart).

Maybe a few of them will soon realise that perhaps it is they who are getting things so badly wrong. It is just a shame it will probably take the rest until just before the next Local Elections (May 2007) for them to listen to the people of Darlington. - Carolynne Holme, Darlington.