2. ● Introductions
● Defining the purpose of the group and ways of working
● Update for those unable to make the Information Evening
● Discussion of parent concerns
● Ideas for the parent survey and other ways to involve the
wider parent body.
● Planning next steps.
Parent voice and involvement in the thinking is ....
● ... a critical factor in making the school’s decant a success;
● ... embedded in our planning
Agenda
3. It is about ....
● Helping IS ask the right questions of its parents body;
● Working with IS to engage the whole parent body in effective
ways;
● Representing the broader views of the parent body;
● Formulating concrete and useful recommendations to the
steering group, council and the school leadership team
It is less about ....
● The school providing updates;
● Parents having a platform to voice personal preferences
What is the function of the Parent Focus Group?
4. ● What might the effect of decant be on the number on roll?
● What are parents current views on the prospect of decant?
● Are families moving to avoid being zoned to IS as is widely
reported?
● What are the HR issues to do with decant?
● What are the costs of decant over and above refurbishment
of accommodation? Staffing? Leadership? Compensating for
perceived disruption?
● What will be ESFC’s input into the decision about how to split
the school be?
Key questions for now (and SMT tomorrow)
5. Main Areas of Concern
● Student wellbeing
● Staff wellbeing and other staff concerns
● Continuity of school ethos
● Continuity of excellence in T&L
Others
● Anticipating and managing parent views and attitudes
● Predicting the effect on numbers on roll (if any);
● Managing the response from stakeholders when final decant
model announced
What are the issues?
6.
7. Main Criteria Headings
● Curriculum – What are the implications for the curriculum? How will each
model promote / inhibit our curriculum aims?
● Resourcing / buildings– How will each model optimise or stretch
deployment of resources (in the widest sense)?
● Guidance – what are the issues and implications for guidance and progression
in each model?
● Timetabling - how does the timetable itself limit the options open to us? Will
the way the curriculum is organized have to change during decant?
● Ethos / School Identity – opportunities for growth and development /
obstacles to the same for each model? Particularly relevant to the House System
● Stakeholder interests - what are the needs and wants of different
stakeholder groups – particularly parents?
● Location and Travel - are there any issues to do with location, access,
travel logistics that we need to be aware of?
● Student transferring between schools over time
● Other issues
What are the issues?
8. ● What is PMI
○ Pluses - the benefits of an issue
○ Minuses - the drawbacks of an issue
○ Interesting - that which is neither a plus or a minus that
needs to be considered. May suggest an alternative
solution.
PMI
9. School 1:
Years 7 and 8 (360 students)
Years 12 and 13 (300
students)
● Total – 660 students
School 2:
Years 9,10 and 11
● (540 students)
● Total – 540 students
Model 1 - Phase Split
10. ● No student movement between sites at all
● Would staff teach on one site or move between the two? .
● Would all Elements on one site constrain the offer?
Curriculum
● + Fits emerging model for 9-11 curriculum/ would enable new ‘supergroup’ to bond and form
identity;
● I – may lead to staff focussing on years / arbitrary? Would staff teach yrs 7 / 8 and just 6th
form in school 1?
● I – what are the pluses and minuses of separating Island Futures students from other years?
Resourcing
● - High level of capital resourcing needed in each school due to years 11 and 13 in both;
● - HE guidance needed in both sites;
● - departmental / subject leadership spread over both sites if staff didn’t move.
● + high level of commitment from ESFC to investment.
● - at least two new teacher needed to meet needs of TT
● - need 1 DT, 2 Food, 1 Music, 5 Science rooms on top of existing (early calculation)
Model 1 - Phase Split
11. Guidance
● - split of house staff (SHOH in School 1 / HOH in school 2?)
● + vertical tutoring in school 2?
● I - Increase in profile of the tutor as a result of houses being split. New tutor model
would need to be developed because of staff moving from site to site during the
week.
● - progression issue. Students would move from school to school over time;
Ethos / School Identity
● I - compromise the old / herald and build the new?
● - houses fragmented across two sites
Other
● I - Elements teachers teach 9,10 and 11 on Wed, Thurs to limit their movement
between schools
● + faculties and phases stay together
● I - Faculty move site day by day - rather than split across sites.
● I - could whole faculties be timetabled to be on one site or the other for whole
days?
● - No teacher has a home base if they teach across the year range.
Model 1 - Phase Split
12. School 1: DEF
Years 7 -13
600 Students
School 2: NRW
Years 7-13
600 Students
Model 2 - House Split
13. ● Two complete schools (+s and - s)
● If staff / students did not move then curriculum choice limited
● Houses intact but separate from each other. Supports guidance.
Guidance
● - / + House system remains the same (vertical continuity) – but split ( 3 houses in each school?);
● + No student movement over time;
● + mentorship opportunities conserved.
● + smaller schools (Human Scale Education USA)
Ethos / School Identity
● - danger that we become two distinct schools?
● - House system split
● - consistency issue between schools / external comparisons? Other?
Other
● + no student movement from school to school
● - communications
Model 2 - House Split
14. Curriculum
● + continuity and progression assured in both schools;
● - Elements and minority subjects would be under threat unless offered across both schools
therefore necessitating movement;
● I - Offer Elements across both schools and so students in 9,10,11 move on Wed and Thurs?
● I - and for Escape
● - BTEC would have to be on one site because of viability of courses / group sizes. Students have
to change house.
● subjects split between two sites.
Resourcing
● - Duplication = expensive. Running IB diploma curriculum in both schools would put pressure
on small classes and increase need for staffing. IN / EAL / HE etc on both sites.
● - leadership structure duplicated across both schools – expensive;
● + lower schools benefit from more dedicated resourcing in both schools;
● + - staff benefit from teaching full range of years;
● - High level of capital resourcing needed in each school dues to years 11 and 13 in both;
● - HE guidance needed in both sites;
● + high level of commitment from ESFC to investment.
● - 4 extra teachers required (spread across all subjects)
● - need 4 Science, 1 textiles and 2 food rooms extra
Model 2 - House Split
15. School 1:
4 Faculties accommodation
School 2:
4 Faculties accommodation
Model 3 - Faculty Split
16. ● High degrees of student movement for all students.
● Detrimental effect of pastoral care
Curriculum
● + - continuity and progression assured;
● + - faculty teams kept together in one place;
● + - all subject resources and support available to full range of students.
Resourcing
● - seems inexpensive, but we would need to decommission labs and DT rooms in one of the
schools so added refurb cost.
● - 7 Science labs needed, 1 Music, 1 Art, 3 D&T workshops
Guidance
● - where would houses reside / where would the structure fit? tracking and supporting
students across two sites would affect current quality of guidance and support.
Ethos / School Identity
● House system split
● In theory would be one whole school (rather than two smaller ones) - but might not feel like
one?
Model 3 - Faculty Split
