Trentham's success down to staff and pupils, not Serco
WE WRITE as parents with two primary age children who will be going to the best non-selective secondary school in our city in the next few years, Trentham High.
I would like to question a number of comments you reported on Friday, October 3 made by our councillors during the full council meeting the day before. I feel that Mr Ibbs really should substantiate what he said with hard evidence.
You reported him saying: "The improvement in terms of Trentham High School has not been in spite of Serco, but because of Serco's involvement."
That is a ridiculous statement and shows just how little he knows about the whole situation regarding the BSF programme and, in particular, his own high school. To top it all he is Hanford and Trentham's elected councillor and is on our council to represent the wishes and feelings of his constituents.
The facts are that Trentham High came in with a blistering 57 per cent result for five A to C grades at GCSE, including English and Maths. The nearest non-faith school was Thistley Hough with 41 per cent. Sandon High, having had £18m spent on it, came in at 36 per cent.
Serco has had absolutely nothing to do with the success Trentham High has achieved this year, that is down too their great team of teachers and the fantastic kids who have worked so hard. I think Mr Ibbs is wrong in what he said about Serco. Our teachers and students have had to work diligently with Serco over them, like the grim reaper, saying they will close it.
My reply to Jean Bowers is simple. How can she say the sites where children are educated are "irrelevant"? Did she know what she was saying? If the site is unsafe, that's OK, is it? If a child gets killed on one of the worst roads for congestion in Stoke or falls under a train or in the canal on a foggy night, is that 'irrelevant'? When the council has to stand up in court under corporate manslaughter charges, will that be 'irrelevant' too?
The people who want Trentham High to stay open are not against change as Mrs Bowers inferred at the meeting, but the opposite. We want the best for all our children and the best for the city.
The logical way to do that is to keep your best school open, invest in refurbishment and state-of-the-art equipment and let a soft federation with Saint Joseph's College build one of the finest schools in the country not just our city.
JULES AND PEN TEED Trentham
16 Comments
View all
by Anthony, Home
Saturday, October 11 2008, 8:46AM
“Only in this alice in wonderland authority which happens to be ranked 147th out of 154 in the country would we consider closing the best performing real secondary school. Every time I read the comments of Meredith, Ibbs and Bagguley et al, I realise why stoke performs so poorley. You would not let these intellectual minnows organise your sock drawer. I bet the land Trentham sits on is worth a lot more than the land Mitchell, Blurton, Berryhill and Longton sit on and there are lots more tame labour voters in those areas. Witness where money is spent in S-O-T and you will see what I mean.”
by Lost4Words, Trentham
Wednesday, October 08 2008, 10:54AM
“Mark, your maths is as almost as good as the councils. The proposed academy is to have 1200 pupils. No it doesn't add up unless you are a Serco employee.”
by Amy, Stoke
Wednesday, October 08 2008, 9:30AM
“Rob. The Council is proposing to abolish catchment areas completely so good schools can and will attract pupils from all over the City. I appreciate that Trentham's CVA is not the highest in the City but neither is St Joseph¿s and no-one would dispute the success of that school. In any case, the government¿s current measure for whether a school is failing or not is based on the number of GCSE passes, including Maths and English. By that measure, Trentham High School is the best non-selective school in the City and the best non-faith school by a large margin.
As I said previously, parents, teachers and governors are happy to embrace change but we do NOT believe that children will be better educated in a large academy. There are other equally valid options to consider and we have a statutory right to have a say in how our schools are run. Neither are we attempting to save Trentham High School at the expense of other schools in the City but it is equally unfair to sacrifice our school in order to provide sufficient pupils to fill an academy.”
by mark, stoke
Wednesday, October 08 2008, 9:26AM
“before anyone thinks i am a fan of the academy system i would like to get one thing straight, in the main i am not. we would all prefer smaller, community based schools, but empty seats cost money. Smaller schools still command a lot of public money to function. In the case of Trentham/Blurton to me it makes perfect sense. Both schools, Blurton in particular, are in need of updating. Two schools with 800 pupils, combining into a school of, say 1400 pupils isnt an outlandish proposal really.”
by mark, stoke
Wednesday, October 08 2008, 9:02AM
“I appriciate the mistake in my last point. It is the 2007 league tables i have taken my data from. More importantly, what are the value added scores? in 2007 trentham was not in the top half of that, more important table. Again lets not get carried away, there is a lot of room for improvement here citywide, one years results should not protect one school from change.
I agree with Rob, things are changing throughout the city. Trentham, as a school serving a quite restrictive catchment cant be ignored.”
by Amy, Stoke
Tuesday, October 07 2008, 5:52PM
“Rob. No-one involved with Trentham High School wishes it to stand still. Results have improved hugely over the last 2 years but parents, teachers and governors are planning ways to continue and improve on the current success. Funnily enough, the plans do not include closing it.
I would also like to point out that Blurton¿s 2008 results put it at 30.7%.”
by Nicky Davis, Trentham
Tuesday, October 07 2008, 5:27PM
“It is true, I am being censored even when I omit the people's names apparently.”
by Nicky Davis, Trentham
Tuesday, October 07 2008, 5:25PM
“And by the way councillor Ibbs, please resign.”
by mark, stoke
Tuesday, October 07 2008, 5:25PM
“i appriciate the points being made here but i feel ome are missing the point. 57 % is decent, and in comparison with the rest of the schools in stoke, particularly the south, is very good.
BUT...
1) Its difficult to compare trentham with the other schools i.e Blurton because there catchment belongs to an area of much higher socio-economic levels
2) following on from that i would expect Trentham to be doing better than other schools. the national average is 44% A*-C therefore it is wrong to call these results 'blistering'
For me the success stories are schools like Blurton, whose 40% is quite admerable considering the background of some of the kids, and holden lane in sneyd green.”
by Simon Davis, Trentham
Tuesday, October 07 2008, 4:25PM
“Rob, You have a perfectly valid point, but knocking all the buildings down and replacing them with new ones will not improve a childs GCSE results - that's down to good leadership and good teachers. The people of Trentham are trying to keep a local community school, it's not like they are rejecting a £10million rebuild to the detriment of everyone else in the city, or asking for a bigger slice of the fund than anyone else. Trentham High is perfoming brilliantly so its hardly seems selfish to want to keep it. If you want to improve education, have a good look at the best performing schools and mimic their methods accross the board, using the BSF fund to rebuild and refurbish where necessary. We will only get one stab at this yet the coucil seem hell bent on adopting a one-size-fits-all approach. Just imagine that the BSF £200 million is spent on academies and standards don't improve, or even fall - then what? There is not a scrap of evidence to suggest that academies are a better solution. Furthermore, Trentham High out performs around 90% of them. A failure to look evidence and to continue to rip up good schools is selfish - trying to save them when you know you are right certainly isn't.”