A letter from a concerned parent to Nick Whitfield

We have received the following wonderful letter from a concerned local resident and parent at the Russell School. It echoes the feelings of so many local people. We would be happy to publish other letters from local residents and parents from either school.

Dear Mr Whitfield,

 

I would like to reply to the consultation at The Russell School on January 31st 2013. The time allocated for the meeting was 4.30-6pm. This time consisted largely of continuous lectures at the audience which contained very little relevant information to underpin the proposed plan of the changes to the Russell site. The time frame was in stark contrast to the time then given to open questions from the audience. I feel that at best almost all questions put forward by the audience were left unanswered and at worst your replies talked once again at the audience containing little relevance the each question asked. Again filling our precious time with yet more unrelated constructed facts. The reasoning put forward was self-serving and filled with innocuous examples, i.e. other schools, other maintenance issues, other children which had no bearing to the issues now at Russell School. The Council's presentation was ineffective as it lacked any actual supporting concrete evidence. The proposal was put forward as a fait accompli, littered with scaremongering facts chosen to present the proposed plan in it's best light. I was startled by lack of knowledge about the current Russell school, its environment, and the children which attend. I did not recognise this description and felt the Russell School was misrepresented.

A more successful use of our only meeting may have been to have an actual discussion in how future school provision can be provided in our borough for our children. To dress up the council proposal as a "moral obligation" hides the real actual story which is the selling of school land. The only "moral obligation" would have been to have presented a fair, open, honest, straightforward, and factual consultation. Instead of the actual continuous lecture, merging into a continuous statement of bluster, irrelevant talk full of unconnected reasoning put forward to suit the council's proposal.

I understand there is an economic need based on the financial shortfall in Richmond Council. As this is a pure funding issue there no evidence or educational argument to support this proposal. Ofsted has also offered no evidence that Russell is shortchanging its' children due to its state of repair and dependence on its outdoor space. Had we have seen relevant feasibility studies that brought the council to the current solution or indeed any other viable alternatives we would have the possibility to believe the alternative would be the best outcome for our children, the Starthmore children and the Richmond borough children needing future educational provision.The proposal lacked clarity and was based on facts cherry picked to show the Russell School can only survive by selling land, yet none of the other sites for the schools integration are required to do so. I heard a pointless lecture rather than an effective consultation. Were our concerns acknowledged and discussed or indeed sufficient answers given I may have drawn a different conclusion towards the council's proposal.

It may provide future dry space under non-leaking roofs, but in doing so you take away the opportunity for our children to enjoy the outdoors and learning in an open green environment which the current government immensely supports. The new school will have less outside space for the children to play and learn even before it doubles it size. Currently, the school has separate paying areas for the Nursery, Infants and Junior pupils. The proposed smaller site can reduce this opportunity. Our children would inherit the problems other schools are having to struggle with far too many children in an inclosed space - as currently experienced at Fern Hill, Latchmere and Marshgate. I chose the Russell School based on its separate and open play areas, the Russell also currently has two Halls for each part of the school to use age appropriately. It is not the academic space per square metre that make it right for the children.

Sadly,only one view, one consultation with only a yes or no outcome was put forward.The council does not recognise that we as parents, teachers, carers, residents are very happy to share our school in any form it takes with any child that lives in Richmond. The only issue I have is that it relies on selling school land and reducing its current footprint. I fail to see the "moral obligation" the council has in sell off school land in order to double the intake on a smaller plot.