On January 29^th 1999, the parents of children at Provost Williams Primary School received a consultation document outlining an action plan to resolve the issues raised by a recent OFSTED inspection. The document was developed by the Governors of the school and outlines two options to address OFSTED's main Key Issue for Action:

Option 1; Retaining Bubbenhall Annexe

Option 2; Closing Bubbenhall Annexe

The main Key Issue for Action raised by OFSTED is:

The OFSTED inspection was conducted by the Centre for British Teachers, CfBT, on 23^rd March 1998 in the abysmal weather just before the Easter floods. The report, issued in May 1998, highlighted a number of issues throughout the school, most of which were justified.

However, other points raised shocked the parents of the school. The report implied that there were major deficiencies in the standard of education for the under fives in both the Bubbenhall annexe and the main site. It also implied that the annexe was a major financial drain on school resources.

The report then went on to imply that the annexe was lacking in certain essential facilities, the main points being the lack of a suitable library at the school and inappropriate facilities for art and model making. In the three day period, the inspectors failed to notice the temporary classroom which has a fully stocked Key Stage 1 library and art/model making facilities.

The Bubbenhall parents immediately highlighted these inaccuracies by writing their concerns to the inspectorate, CfBT. The initial responses were promising stating that they would investigate the concerns. The final statement being:

However, no further response was received by any parent until a number of prompting letters were sent before and after Christmas. It then emerged that all the responses were supposedly sent the previous August.

When the responses from CfBT eventually arrived, they further angered the parents by stating:

The letter then went on to say that CfBT had not received any adverse comments about the inspection or the inspection report from either the Headteacher or the Governing body.

The response then went on to say:

Finally they stated:

Immediately after the issue of the Governors consultation document last month, the Bubbenhall Annexe Action Group, BAAG, was formed with Nigel Tuckey as co-ordinator. Members of the group consisted of past, current and future parents. An action plan was drawn up to enable all parents to pull in the same direction.

It immediately became apparent that, unlike the last school closure campaign, they were not dealing with the faceless body of the Warwickshire LEA. Instead, they were dealing with a school Governing body, which most parents know in person. This ruled out a high publicity campaign and criticism of the school or Governors

The Governors, as part of the consultation process, had arranged three private sessions plus an open evening for parents of both communities to express their views. Most parents from Bubbenhall attended one of the private sessions and, armed with a sheet of key points drawn up by BAAG, proceeded to voice they're various concerns to the Governors. Each parent was requested by BAAG to send a follow-up letter to all the Governors reiterating the points raised at the meeting.

Following the private sessions, an open evening for the Bubbenhall community was held by BAAG within the Village Hall on Thursday 11^th February. Nigel Tuckey gave a presentation highlighting the situation and requesting help from the community.

The Governors' open meeting for all parents and members of both communities was held on Wednesday 24^th February within the School hall at Ryton. Approximately 150 members of both communities attended the meeting. The vast majorities of attendees were from Bubbenhall and they were anxious for the Governors to answer the many questions.

It was a surprise to everyone therefore, to find the meeting being chaired, not by the chair of Governors, but by Colin James, the school representative on the Warwickshire LEA. Why was the LEA being involved so closely with a Governors decision?

As the meeting started, it was clear that Colin James was determined to keep the meeting in order and to a strict timetable. This he did extremely well. He also answered the majority of questions being raised by the communities.

But the main purpose of the meeting for the parents was to communicate with the Governors and this did not happen. The governors were in 'listening' mode and would not be drawn by any of the questions. Everyone who attended the meeting came away feeling empty.

The Governors consultation period finishes on the 12^th March. The Governors will then review all the information gathered throughout the consultation period and will vote on which option to follow. An announcement is expected by the end of March.

Hopefully at this stage, the Governors will hold another meeting to discuss the final proposal.

Rest assured that the members of BAAG are not just sitting back waiting for the final decision. Further options are being looked into and their viability investigated.

The Bubbenhall Annexe Action Group would like to thank all the members of the community for their support during this campaign and especially those who have attended the meetings. Many of you have had children at the school in the past and it is has been very gratifying to hear your positive comments during the campaign.

We would especially like to thank the Bubbenhall Garter Group who kindly postponed their February meeting for the BAAG open meeting. We would also like to thank the Rainbows who helped set the hall up ready for the meeting.

For further information, contact:

Nigel Tuckey

Bubbenhall Annexe Action Group Co-ordinator

17 Home Close

Home 301799 Mobile 07971 378226

BAAG Web site:

Latest information and copies of campaign documents

http://www.fortunecity.com/x-stream/hackers/3