Labour councillor calls for Leicestershire schools chief to resign
Labour has called for Leicestershire's education chief to resign following the county's failure to get cash to rebuild schools.
Councillor Max Hunt, leader of the Labour group at County Hall, said Councillor Ivan Ould should take responsibility for "the worst day the county's education department has ever had".
Coun Ould said he had no intention of resigning.
As reported in the Leicester Mercury yesterday, the Government decided not to give £80m to rebuild secondary schools in Loughborough, Quorn and Barrow under its Building Schools for the Future (BSF) scheme.
Coun Hunt said the Government had seen the "mistakes" made in the restructuring of schools in Melton so it had not backed the Loughborough bid.
Yesterday the decision was taken to shut Melton's King Edward VII School because of low pupil numbers – which critics said was the consequence of bad decision-making when reorganisation started three years ago.
Coun Hunt said County Hall had failed its first two BSF bids. He said: "We will call for Ivan Ould to resign at the next council meeting because this is the worst day the county's education department has had.
"This authority and this cabinet need to reassess their competence in planning future pupil numbers and they need to listen more closely to what people want."
Labour councillors and MP Andy Reed were criticised by Conservative councillors for not backing County Hall's bid – in particular by opposing the closure of Limehurst High School, Loughborough, which some believe affected the bid.
Coun Ould said the Government had indicated it was looking favourably on Leicestershire's bid – particularly as the county council had been encouraged to submit its plans earlier than expected.
He said: "We thought we were making a good bid for Loughborough.
"We have to find out exactly why we were unsuccessful.
"We completed all the schools in Melton on time and budget and gave people the three schools they wanted.
"We clearly got Melton right but it's in the nature of Labour to deflect from their own responsibility for not supporting our bid for Loughborough."
Simon Galton, leader of the Liberal Democrat group, said he was not calling for Coun Ould's resignation but there needed to be "a public apology" for the situation.
He said: "What we need to find out is whether there is a connection between the failure in the bid for Loughborough and what has happened in Melton.
"The council also needs to go back to square one in its plan for a change to 11-to-16 schools across the county – if there's no money for new buildings, what will be the benefit?"
At a meeting of the county council's cabinet yesterday, education bosses said they would now review the situation in Loughborough to consider what to do next.
It could mean officials will submit another bid or proceed with reorganisation, despite no money for new buildings.
Jonathan Mellor, head teacher of Limehurst High School, in Loughborough, which would have closed under the plans, said: "We're disappointed young people in Loughborough have not got the injection of money but we are pleased Limehurst remains open for now."
25 Comments
View all
by ANON, Loughborough
Wednesday, March 10 2010, 3:42PM
“Yes they did. That's true. However as the council rightly said Option C was "suicide" for all the many reasons explained.
However the bid has now failed and we must seek other avenues to deliver a OneThroughSchool model. See my original comment.
I'm confident that a plan can be arrived at which will deliver a OTS model and we have already made some representations.
Obviously whatever option the council chooses they will go back to consultation. As I've said below the issues including those surrounding the Limehurst site remain however because work is unlikely to be related to BSF the council has some scope to (and excuse the cliche) think outside the box. Watch this space.”
by steve, Melton
Wednesday, March 10 2010, 3:37PM
“I may have misread but did Councillor Ould say the melton reorganisation was a success?Perhaps this is a strange usage of the word I am unfamiliar with - a three school plan leading to the closure of one school and interestingly only two of the schools had money spent on them, KE7 was promised much but nothing was delivered - it does seem that the problem was known in 2008 and the Council played for time hoping something would turn up but nothing did.
Have we had an explanation as to why they got the school numbers so wrong? a few differences are expected but virtually a 600 error is ridiculous especially when the Year 4,5 and 6 numbers are so clearly known -where were the council expecting the other students to come from?
I notice the official line is the parents chose the other schools but let me see two schools had money spent to give them brand spanking new premises one school had nothing spent on it - gosh where shall I send my child?
It still does not explain how they got it so wrong but it is offensive that they blame the parents and then no doubt the staff of KE7 but not the real villains.
I am more a "cock-up" than conspiracy man so my answer is that they counted Belvoir twice, student numbers 2400, 600 in Belvoir and the rest in melton but when they came to metlon they kept the 2400 figure, divided it by three and got 800 they they are amazed why the other students have disappeared.
Only a guess but plausable? who can say.”
by ANON, Eastern Loughborough
Wednesday, March 10 2010, 3:29PM
“Yes and the majority that voted option C?
Good job its still a strong & growing majority.”
by Simon, Loughborough
Wednesday, March 10 2010, 3:24PM
“ANON
People can visit our site and make their own minds up. We remain positive that change can come to the town and a one through school model can be implemented. We have concerns however we press forward.
Regarding our facebook page - we have blocked two people as far I'm aware. We won't tolerate abuse, spam or libel.
As for option C - I repeat. I sat down at two meetings to discuss. I put forward our suggestions, helped draft what was decided which in the event was little, considered it as a committee and spoke to other heads and governors. We decided within a DAY that option C wasn't viable as written. We then spent a week trying to get it to a viable state because as I said at the time Option C has two major problems with it. However in the end we concluded that Option C just wasn't viable despite our and I must say Jonathans best efforts. We told those involved our reasons and why we considered Option A to be the preferred option.
No great conspiracy - just trying to arrive at the best solution for the majority.”
by ANON, Eastern Loughborough
Wednesday, March 10 2010, 3:10PM
“Its amazing how people can judge you!
I anon may not be who you think I am! you have blocked so many people for stating the obvious and airing their views!!!And who is it thats being political, blaming Labour for all of this?? You have posted many comments regarding Labour!!”