As a facebook newbie Ive been following the debate for a while now and Ellas view that the site should be open to all has given me the courage to comment. I should declare an interest in that I am married to a newly appointed governor. These thoughts are entirely my own, but, as you might imagine, I am relieved to see a little less governor bashing recently. If, for a moment we could stand back from the campaign spin, it seems to me that the central fact is that, although there is strong tide of sentimental attachment to the current building, the facilities it offers are no longer fit for purpose. Despite admirable loyalty and many fond memories, being judged as one of the 260 worst buildings in the country is a pretty bad place to be. The school struggles, often heroically and with a brave face, with stretched budgets, high running costs and operational difficulties. Surely everyone can agree that something must be done? So the £2.6m on the table seems a heaven sent opportunity to secure adequate facilities for the foreseeable future. But, unless I am misunderstanding the campaigners position, I think they are asking us all to sign a petition that would turn down the £2.6m in favour of a make do and mend approach - in the hope that something better might turn up some time. My view is that could only work in the very short term and does not safely address the underlying problem. So it might be OK for children who are nearing the end their time at the school, but is no good at all for children starting out, nor the succeeding generations. It also seems a very risky strategy given the state of public finances. The downside risk of the school being forced to close would be a tragedy. So, for me, its a no-brainer that we should grab the money on the table now to provide improved facilities and all the educational and running cost advantages that would flow from this investment. Like it or not that requires a radical update. The question that seems to be vexing everyone is whether this quantum leap in the quality of the building should be achieved by a refurb or a rebuild. This is largely a technical/economic question and to get a good answer it is necessary to cost fully each of the alternatives and then evaluate the benefits each offers. I certainly have neither the knowledge nor the expertise for that, and with the greatest respect, I wonder whether any of the contributors to the campaign do. Nor is this a decision for the governors - it will be for the EFA and their shortlisted contractors to slug it out in contract negotiations. We have been told that, in the EFAs experience, contractors have been unwilling to refurb as this is less economically viable. The conclusion from this has to be that a refurb is likely to be either more expensive, or yield less benefits, or both. I confess that this conclusion leaves me somewhat bemused as to what this whole campaign is actually striving for now. What outcome does the campaign truly want? Same size school? Despite some campaign spin, my understanding is that a new design would yield more useable and efficient space. More consultation? Yes of course - and maybe with the clarity of hindsight the mess we are in now could have been avoided. (It is also true that much of the info out there has got lost in the campaign noise). But going forward, its hard to see how the community can be fully involved in complex contract negotiations. Retaining the old building? But, setting aside sentiments, it is hard to see that the difficult layout, poor use of space, inadequate facilities, failing construction, poor environmental performance, asbestos etc, etc are features worthy of retention at the expense of improvement. Pre-school unit not costed in? Promises have been made publicly by DCC and these need to be honoured. So does it just come down to the look of a new building? Or am I missing something? There were certainly some horror shots in the early days of the campaign showing semi-industrial sheds which many (including me) would view as pretty ghastly. If this is what we are really worrying about, will we not have a formal and well proven opportunity to hold the DNP and planners to account in the consultation process once a design is submitted for approval? The campaigners say the planners will be a pushover for the EFA. That is not my experience, but anyway, the campaign has a strong voice so couldnt the admirable PR and lobbying skills be mobilised at that point to ensure that any development on the site is sympathetic to the town we are justly so proud of? To my mind at least, that would be a great campaign to run and win and Id sign up for that. The DSOS campaign has given rise to a lot of strong feelings - and occasionally some harsh words. Surely everyone wants the best educational facilities possible, not just for the current cohort, but the next and their childrens children. Am I being impossibly naive to urge the community and campaigners to stop bickering and speak with a united voice to make sure Chagford secures the best outcome for its childrens future? We may well be demanding more funding to secure both the preschool unit and improved aesthetics. We will be far better placed to win that if we can present a united front. Finally, others have commented, but it is worth repeating that the quality of the education that a school can deliver is not just dependant on the fabric of the building. The joint commitment of parents, staff and governors are absolutely key. There may be some work to be done to rebuild the mutual confidence and goodwill that is so vital for that. As I said, these are solely my personal views - sorry if it is a bit of a rant. Bless you all.
Posted on: Mon, 08 Dec 2014 09:14:36 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015