Campaigning for a WM school in Grangetown

The weather wasn't at its best, but there was a rally yesterday in Cardiff in support of the campaign for a new Welsh-medium school in Grangetown. The school had been promised by the Cardiff Council, and had already been approved by the Welsh Government together with 50% of the funding for it. However Cardiff then changed their minds and announced that they wanted to make it an English-medium school instead, but rapidly withdrew that plan and now want to conduct another consultation.

Here are the speeches from it by Sioned Mills, Leanne Wood, Judith Woodman, Ben Foday, Dyfed Wyn Huws, Eluned Morgan and Neil McEvoy, taken from the Ymgyrch TAG YouTube page. I hope I've got them in the right order.

     

Ymgyrch TAG also has pages on Facebook and Twitter.

A new Welsh-medium school for Shotton

I try to keep an eye on proposals for new Welsh-medium schools, but here is one that almost slipped under the radar. This report is from Deeside.com

Welsh Medium school places will be available from September 2014 for Nursery and Reception aged pupils for the first time in Shotton and Deeside, in response to public demand

Welsh is taught as first language in Welsh-medium schools, children wishing to join a Welsh-medium school do not have to speak Welsh to attend if they are young enough to learn the language quickly. The numbers of children in Welsh-medium schools has increased steadily in recent years as demand grows.

Parents and guardians with children who will be 3 or 4 years old by 31 August 2014 can apply for a place in a school nursery or reception class for September 2014.

Flintshire County Council has been working in partnership with Menter Iaith and Mudiad Meithrin and this extra provision for Welsh-medium education will be available from September 2014 in the building currently used by Shotton Infant School on Plymouth Street. It will be called:

Ysgol Croes Atti @ Glannau Dyfrdwy
Croes Atti Primary School @ Deeside

Councillor Chris Bithell, Cabinet Member for Education, said: "This is a great opportunity for children in the Shotton and Deeside area to have the benefit of being fully bilingual in Welsh and English, by receiving a Welsh-medium education. Admissions to reception classes for next year open on 30 September, and close on 29 November. Parents applying for nursery places can apply from 6 January 2014. I would urge parents and guardians not to miss out on a place!"

To register your interest, find out more, and to get an admissions pack, please contact Flintshire County Council via the website at www.flintshire.gov.uk or contact the Lifelong Learning Department on 01352 704068 / 704019.

Deeside.com, 20 September 2013

Just to be clear, Ysgol Croes Atti is an existing WM school in Fflint. So it would appear that the new school is, in the beginning at least, going to be a satellite of that school sharing the same head and board of governors. That might well change as the new school fills up.

Here are some pictures of the building. It's old, but it will do.

     

     

In terms of capacity, Shotton Infants School currently has an admission number of 50, although its actual intake is much lower than this. This is one of the reasons why it makes sense for it to amalgamate with Taliesin Junior School, which is only a few hundred metres away and has a similar number of surplus places. This means that the new WM school would have an admission number of about 25. It would be the sixth Welsh-medium primary in Sir y Fflint.

Paying for Universal Free School Meals

On the whole, the announcement that all children in England aged 7 and under will get a free school lunch is something to be welcomed. In fact I've just read an opinion piece by Jemima Lewis in the Telegraph, of all places, and pretty much agree with every word she wrote. It was quite disconcerting!

     

     Everyone benefits from free school meals

For those who are interested, the full report on the pilot studies in Durham and Newham is here.

I would, however, want to add one thing to what she said. Schemes which provide a universal benefit—rather than those in which eligibility for the benefit is determined according to the ability to pay—are some of the most useful tools available to government for redistributing wealth and alleviating the effects of poverty. It goes without saying that the benefit is paid for out of general taxation rather than being "free", but that is a good thing in so far as we have a progressive tax system in which the rich pay more tax than those on middle incomes, and those on middle incomes pay more tax than the poor.

This is why, for example, the idea put about by Tories in Wales that rich people shouldn't get free prescriptions, because they can afford to pay for them and would be prepared to pay a nominal sum for them to ease financial pressure on our NHS, is completely bogus. Of course rich people should pay more, but it is much better for them to do it through paying higher taxes rather than over the counter for each item.

The new universal FSM scheme in England is expected, according to this report, to cost some £600m a year, although I'm not sure whether this is the overall cost for all children, or just the additional cost for those who are not currently receiving FSMs. As some 20% currently claim FSMs, the overall cost might be in the order of £750m a year. But bringing the 80% who are not currently receiving FSMs into the scheme represents a very considerable extension of provision. In fact it would be a much greater extension than would be the case with free prescriptions, because the vast majority of prescriptions issued in England are already free.

And of course it would be even better if FSMs were extended to all primary school children rather than just the younger ones, and if they were extended to secondary school children as well.

-

So in principle this is a great idea and should be supported, but in practice there is one major problem with what has been proposed. It would be fine if this £600m were to be raised by increasing taxation, but there are no plans to increase it. This means that the scheme can only be funded by yet more cuts to other public services, on top of the savage cuts that have already been imposed and which have yet to fully bite in any case.

It means that this proposal is not really going to help the poor, because they are already getting FSMs. It is only going to help the better off, who will save some £400 a year for each child. The poor will in fact lose out because they rely disproportionately on the existing public services that will have to be cut to pay for it.

The ConDem government has done exactly the same thing with income tax. Yes, it is a good idea to take the lower paid out of income tax altogether by raising the threshold, but this should have been balanced by increasing the basic rate of income tax so that the overall tax take remained the same. As things stand, increasing the threshold from £6,475 in 2010/11 to £10,000 in 2014/15 will give every basic rate taxpayer an extra £705 a year (although an allowance needs to be made for inflation, making it maybe £400 or £500 in real terms). So, once again, the overall effect is to reduce the amount the UK government has available to spend on public services which the poor need more than those on middle incomes.

The LibDems will claim credit for both raising the income tax threshold to £10,000 and for UFSMs for those aged 7 and under. They will say they are helping to create a fairer, more equal society. They will say that by being in government, they have managed to save us from the rabid excesses of a government entirely made up of Tories. But this isn't really true. What they've "giving" with one hand is being clawed back by the other.

If universal benefits are to be extended, they need to be paid for by corresponding increases in general taxation. This is the only way that other public services can be maintained rather than cut.

Valuing Purpose and Policies

I was quite impressed by Julia Gillard's article in the Guardian today. She was leader of the Australian Labor Party and Prime Minister of Australia until being replaced by former leader and Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in June this year, in an attempt by the ALP to prevent the heavy loss the party was expected to suffer in the general election held last weekend. Although at first it looked likely that the switch might revive the ALP's fortunes, the boost in the polls was only short-lived, and Australia now has a right-wing government.

The "soundbite" version of what she had to say is here, but the full version contains—even if masked by some blatant party political point-scoring—a few insights which I think we would do well to learn from.

-

One of her points is to reflect on what to hold on to and what to reject after a defeat in the polls. As any party consigned to opposition licks its wounds and prepares itself for the next election in a few years' time, it is tempting to throw away your policies on the grounds that they have been "repudiated by the people" and instead try to come up with new, fresh policies in the hope of winning the next election.

But only a shallow and unprincipled party would do that. In order to decide what to hold on to and what to write off as a mistake, the guiding principle must be purpose. You must embrace what your party is for, not conduct elections on the basis that this can be shunted aside and that you care for nothing except retaining the seats you hold.

-

However another point that Julia Gillard makes struck me as being particularly pertinent to the way we do politics here: namely, how the work of developing coherent and relevant policies tends to be much less highly valued within party organizations than soundbite performances in the media.

I can't speak for other parties, but I know that Plaid Cymru has been very prone to this. All too often the task of developing policy was seen as being able to come up with a smart answer for a party spokesperson to give when questioned about one of the burning issues of the moment, rather than the more difficult task of working through how everything fitted together and then being able to present our policies on that issue in a way that would make sense to the public because they fitted into the wider context of what we stand for.

Being a party of purpose is not just about being a party of values and policy choices that demonstrate those values in action. It is also about being a party that has a culture which internally rewards actions and conduct that speak of purpose, not self-interest.

It is to Labor’s culture, its spirit, that the most damage has been done. To refresh Labor’s purpose ... requires the most and hardest work. It will take time and it starts with renewing the things of the spirit, Labor’s cultural norms ... [and] it is clear that some new cultural norms need to be thought about and deliberately set.

Ultimately organizations tell you what they are all about and what they value by what they reward. A great sales company rewards sales with performance bonuses. A great manufacturing business rewards those who generate fault-free products for it. A company with an overriding concern for safety constantly renews it protocols and issues rewards when no one gets hurt at work. This is all commonplace and common sense.

-

But how does it work for a progressive political party? Unfortunately, internally we have not rewarded Labor purpose. In order to renew purpose in opposition new cultural norms are needed, norms that reward the contributions that are truly the most valuable.

How does Labor refresh purpose and demonstrate that is exactly what it is doing? How does Labor set a cultural norm that ensures those who put in most for the collective effort are recognized for the work done? Or put another way, how does Labor make visible and valued what is currently hidden and undervalued?

In a world where the views of your colleagues about your merits matter so much to your chance of promotion, it is not at all surprising a great deal of effort goes into media work no one but political insiders ever see. At the same time, countless hours of work can go on behind closed doors on policy development. These efforts are generally never seen by the public and can even be close to invisible to colleagues.

Real efforts need to be made to change this method of functioning, to show purpose to the public and to ensure the best contributors to the collective work of the opposition are clearly identified to their colleagues.

Perhaps policy contests could be held in the open rather than behind closed doors. Rather than having the shadow ministry debate difficult policy questions, parliamentary party policy seminars should discuss them, open to the media and live on 24-hour television. Policy contests could then be taken out of the back rooms into the light. To the extent policy contests have leaked out from back rooms, they are inevitably reported through the prism of division. By being open from the start, the debate can be put in the prism of purpose. A norm would be set that ideas matter and those with the best ideas are the most valued.

Currently, working hard in your office on a new policy, being a key contributor to shadow ministry discussions, coming up with an innovative way of attracting new people to join the ALP – none of these valuable contributions is as visible to your Labor colleagues as performances on Sky television.

Guardian Australia, 14 September 2013

Plaid Cymru would be all the better if we looked to set similar norms for the way that we operate as a political party.

A Complete Set

Since forming a UK Government with the Tories, the LibDems seem to have thrown away nearly every other principle they once had, so today's decision to make a U-turn and support nuclear energy more or less completes the set.

But I'll say this for them: at least they debated it at conference and made a democratic decision to change their policy. Nobody in a senior position within the LibDem party would dare claim, or think they could get away with claiming, that their policy on nuclear power was something different from what had been decided at conference.

Full of kids

Last week I wrote about Ysgol Treganna's new building, and showed some pictures of it while the fitting-out work was being completed.

But it looks very much better when full of kids:

     

Increasing surplus school places in the Vale

Yesterday, the Vale of Glamorgan Council issued a press release about a proposed new solution to meeting the ever-increasing demand for Welsh-medium education in Barry.

     Bright future for Gwaun y Nant and Oakfield schools

Welsh-medium Gwaun y Nant and English-medium Oakfield currently share the same building, shown in the image below. The council had floated the idea of closing Oakfield and two small schools in the rural Vale back in February this year, as I reported here. However there was a storm of outcry from the two rural schools, and the council quickly announced that they would not go ahead. As I explained in that post, it would be wrong to close the schools at Llanfair and Llancarfan, but it would be entirely justified to close Oakfield and allow Ysgol Gwaun y Nant to use the whole building.

     

It is worth repeating what I wrote at the time. Oakfield is in an urban location in Barry with no less than five other schools within easy walking distance of it: Cadoxton, Colcot, Gladstone, Holton and Jenner Park. Based on a capacity of seven times the Admission Number, all these schools have surplus places. These are the figures for statutory age children (i.e. excluding nursery provision) for 2012:

Cadoxton ... 413 capacity ... 331 on roll ... 82 surplus places (20%)
Colcot ... 406 capacity ... 237 on roll ... 169 surplus places (42%)
Gladstone ... 350 capacity ... 329 on roll ... 21 surplus places (6%)
Holton ... 525 capacity ... 344 on roll ... 181 surplus places (34%)
Jenner Park ... 273 capacity ... 199 on roll ... 74 surplus places (27%)

Total ... 1,967 capacity ... 1,440 on roll ... 527 surplus places (26%)

Oakfield ... 210 capacity ... 89 on roll ... 121 surplus places (58%)

Source for capacities | Source for numbers on roll

This level of surplus places is clearly unsustainable and at least one of these schools needs to close, even allowing for future population growth. In such a situation the only question is which.

Oakfield is an obvious choice for three reasons. First, it is not a good school. It's inspection report from Estyn is terrible, classed as "unsatisfactory" on every key question. This is as bad as it can be. So if we put any weight behind the idea that we should not close schools that perform well, it stands to reason that those which perform badly should be first in line to be closed ... providing that there are other, better schools in the same area with enough surplus places. The two closest alternatives, Colcot and Jenner Park, are only a few hundred metres away. So no family will be inconvenienced by the closure.

Second, Oakfield has by far the greatest percentage of surplus places and is now more than half empty. The unpopularity of the school must be linked to its poor performance, and parents are obviously voting with their feet. It is therefore pointless to keep the school open for much longer.

The third reason for choosing to close Oakfield is that it shares the same building with Ysgol Gwaun y Nant. This Welsh-medium school is rated Grade 1 by Estyn on every key question, and is understandably growing both on the strength of its good reputation and because of the general increase in demand for Welsh-medium education. It therefore makes perfect sense for Ysgol Gwaun y Nant to gradually expand into the space currently taken up by Oakfield Primary. Furthermore, there is no reason why this cannot be phased over a few years so as to minimize disruption to children already at Oakfield.

-

The council's new proposal is welcome to the extent that it will allow Gwaun y Nant to expand to fill the whole building. That's a complete no-brainer. But it is quite amazing that the council are considering spending more than £3.6m on a new building for Oakfield. There are already over 600 surplus places in English-medium schools in that part of Barry, and building a new one form entry school will increase that number by a further 210 to result in some 850 surplus places. This is because any increase in uptake for Welsh-medium education by enlarging Gwaun y Nant will be matched by a corresponding decrease in the demand for English-medium education.

It is the economics of the madhouse. These huge numbers of surplus spaces cost money, yet the council is proposing capital expenditure of over £3.6m in an exercise that will further increase the amount of revenue expenditure required by having to maintain even more surplus places than they already have. In times of economic hardship this is a grossly irresponsible use of money that could be spent on other things.

I have no objection to spending money on new school buildings, providing such building work is part of a programme to replace older, less suitable and more expensive to maintain school buildings elsewhere. So any proposal that the Vale of Glamorgan Council puts forward for consultation needs to include an appraisal of their existing stock of school buildings with a view to reducing the number of surplus school places in this part of Barry. That will mean closing at least one of the English-medium schools.