Below is the open letter Gwernyfed community councillors have sent to the Welsh Government in reponse to Powys County Council’s proposal to close Gwernyfed High School.

On February 23 the Cabinet of Powys County Council (PCC) voted to proceed to the next stage in their quest to close Gwernyfed High School (GHS). Their goal is to build a new school in Brecon to cater for the 11-16 age groups (up to GCSE), forcing children from the Gwernyfed catchment to travel by bus, often for over an hour each way. However, such a development can take a long time, so PCC’s interim solution will be to lump together Brecon High School and Gwernyfed High under one management. The crucial element here is that the nominal closure of the two schools (to be re-opened a day or two later under a new name) will allow for the write-off of Brecon High’s huge accumulated debts – conveniently allowing them to ignore the mal-administration which allowed such debts to be accumulated in the first place.

Their proposed new school is to have no place for a 6th form. PCC’s hope is that Neath Port Talbot College (NPTC) will pick-up all A Level provision for the entire area – despite the fact that NPTC currently have no buildings, infrastructure or local staff to accommodate such a change. This is clearly a giant gamble with our children’s futures.

Although there is now to be a period of formal “consultation”, we doubt whether the Cabinet will pay serious attention any alternative views. To date Cabinet has so far chosen to discount a wealth of information, including Community Impact Assessments conducted by Gwernyfed Community Council and many other organisations in the area, demonstrating very clearly the serious negative impact that any such proposals will inevitably inevitably have - not only on the prospective future pupils but also on the catchment area as a whole. The Cabinet appears intent on the solution they have drawn up, and is oblivious to the wanton shortcomings of their own proposals, or to the single-minded and unanimous opposition of every community group in the entire Gwernyfed catchment. Gwernyfed Community Council understands that an organisational restructure such as the one proposed is only acceptable if the level and quality of schooling is to be improved. Sadly, the proposals contain virtually no information on the subject of learning quality or educational standards.

GHS is a thriving – and improving – school which produces good academic results and is well-thought-of for its inclusive approach. Closure of GHS would mean radically increased journey times for many of our local children, who would pay the price for this policy in diminished health and well-being, and disengagement from community groups and sports clubs. Yet in return, they would be very unlikely to meet with any improvements in their education beyond a small number of extra subjects – which would by definition be of interest to only a small minority. On the other hand, the disruption to their educational progress would be highly significant, and there is a very strong probability that the replacement provision would fail to meet the high standards they currently enjoy.

PCC have cited a number of arguments in support of their favoured model. All of these arguments are seriously flawed, downright wrong or merely irrelevant.

1. Argument: a single high school will cut out unfilled places

Response: Unfilled places are typically harmful due to the excess unproductive costs incurred. Thus, by implication, unfilled places are only an issue where poor management and planning has not trimmed its teaching capacity to meet the needs of its pupil numbers. GHS has a balanced budget, has demonstrated diligent management of resources and has no underutilised teaching capacity. Any “unfilled places” are no more significant than an empty, unheated classroom, with very little cost implication. It is clearly outrageous that GHS should face the axe to offset unmanaged excess capacity elsewhere.

A further consideration: spare capacity may also be seen as very low cost potential for expansion. Given the ONS predictions for population growth over the next decade, it would seem prudent to retain some growth capacity rather than face higher costs in due course to redevelop extra places.

2. Argument: to create a critical mass of pupils that meets the Authority’s agreed minimum threshold of 600 pupils at KS3 and KS4

The figure of 600 is widely used in education, representing a class size of 30 for a four-form intake. (120 pupils over 5 years = 600). However, although this seems a straightforwardly efficient model, the reality is more complex. At KS4 the enhanced range of choices means that there are very likely to be subjects for which “parcels” of 30 pupils cannot be maintained. The hoped-for efficiencies and cost savings are thus likely to be more marginal than hoped. There are many, many examples of highly successful schools which do not fit his model. It is the responsibility of every school to manage responsibly and creatively to make its resources meet the number of pupils enrolled. Gwernyfed Community Council is convinced that GHS has demonstrated such diligence, and that disrupting the education for our district’s young people in pursuit of a theoretical or marginal financial benefit is foolhardy.

3. Argument: a larger school can provide enhanced choice and a wider curriculum

This argument has an undoubted element of truth, but makes no allowance for the priorities and preferences expressed very clearly, again and again by the families in our district. The simple reality is that, offered the choice between a large and geographically remote facility offering an enhanced range of more specialised GCSE options, or a smaller community high school in which every pupil is known by every teacher, in which the sense of community and identity underpins every pupil’s personal development, and in which the essential subjects are all taught to a very high standard, the local choice will be for “small and local”. In any case, we are not aware of any cases where lack of choice at KS4 has led to any pupil failing to gain university entry in their chosen subject.

The mantra of “choice” has led educational planning for some time now. Gwernyfed Community Council contends that blind pursuit of choice is not a responsible policy. Choice is just one factor in the equation of costs and benefits. Gwernyfed Community Council is bound to reflect the opinion of our community that breadth of academic choice is a relatively low priority, and greatly out-weighed by the personal, educational and community costs.

4. Argument: closure of school 6th Forms in favour of tertiary (college based) A Levels will allow more choice and a broader post-16 curriculum in a single location.

This contention is at best speculative, since it is based on a presumption about the level of provision which could be offered by NPTC. We understand that there was at one stage an assurance that up to 30 subjects could be offered at A Level – although there has apparently been no collaboration or consultation with NPTC in the preparation of the current proposals. In reality this proposal does not stand up to scrutiny at any level. Even PCC’s target level of 150 students is not remotely enough to support such a wide range of subjects. In reality, research has indicated that the student numbers would be considerably lower, as students on the geographical margins would opt to head in other directions. If you are being compelled to travel, then it makes little difference which direction you go!

In electing for the tertiary model of A Level delivery, PCC would relinquish any influence over its running. For NPTC it would be a minor, non-core operation, and in all probability a loss-making one. The risk from PCC relying on this ungoverned provision for educating our region’s brightest young people is extremely grave. Faced with a loss-making operation, NPTC would have no choice but to trim the curriculum, to rely on inexperienced part-time lecturing staff, or force students to travel yet further afield. It is nonsense to suggest that such provision would be some kind of improvement on the high-quality A Level teaching now provided by GHS.

5.Argument: the option removes the need for post-16 inter-school/college transport

It is specious to suggest that in-course/inter-school transport is in any way different from any other school/college travel. The small minority who currently elect to travel would still have to travel – no benefit would accrue to them. But the majority who currently benefit from a local school would have to travel as well – at considerable cost in time, effort and resources.

In fact, given the above points about the viability of college-based A Level provision, is it highly probable that even more in-course travel would be necessary – and over even larger distances.

Gwernyfed Community Council is not convinced that replacement of GHS with a large facility in Brecon would lead to any meaningful benefits to the education of our children; on the contrary, it would lead to considerable educational disadvantage and hardship for many pupils.

In addition, we draw attention to the serious loss to the community of the sports facilities, meeting rooms and performance venues which are currently made available to the public at GHS. This would cause an inevitable negative impact on the artistic and cultural life of the area, and would lead to the immediate and unavoidable loss of many sports and fitness activities – which appears directly the opposite of the intentions of both Welsh and National Governments.

Gwernyfed Community Council also fears the wider losses which would inevitably follow. The demographic profile of the Gwernyfed area shows a larger proportion of elderly people than is found in neighbouring urban areas. The school is both a vital resource for the community and a very important employer. Without it we predict that the area would become largely denuded of families – a retirement zone.

Gwernyfed Community Council is in no doubt that the vast majority of the local population is deeply and implacably opposed to the closure of GHS. We must also record that the universal perception is that the proposal to close GHS does not in any way arise from the intention to improve education for local children, but only from the need to conjure a solution for the difficulties in Brecon. This community is supportive of the need for a new school in Brecon, but is deeply opposed to the proposition that our community and children must be disadvantaged in order to leverage a solution to problems elsewhere.

Gwernyfed Community Council must regrettably also place on record our fears about PCC’s capacity to successfully manage the project they have envisaged. It is a matter of record that under the Primary Schools Modernisation Programme, PCC presented plans for the building of new primary schools in Hay-on-Wye and Talgarth, plus the extensive redevelopment of three further local schools. Seven years later, not one single objective has been completed and consultations continue to drag on. Now PCC has proposed to simultaneously undertake the construction of an entire new high school, plus the significant disruption of establishing a new single management structure for two schools transitioning to one. Amazingly, it has proposed not only to do this here in Brecon and Gwernyfed, but to simultaneously attempt the same thing in Builth Wells and Llandrindod Wells. In short, we gravely doubt the capacity of PCC to undertake the projects they are proposing. The potential for error, disruption and waste of public funds is very great.

We note that the Welsh Government is expected to support at least 50% of the proposed redevelopment costs in Brecon – a sum of many tens of millions of pounds. Gwernyfed Community Council suggests that it is entirely inappropriate for this huge expenditure of public funds, entirely to the detriment of this community. We respectfully submit that the Welsh Government should make it clear to PCC that it will not support proposals which carry no benefit, and significant harm, to a significant portion of the population. We are hopeful that a far-reaching and effective solution is possible for Brecon, but reject any proposal that this should be at the expense of this community.

Yours sincerely

Cllr Andy Jones (Chairman, Gwernyfed Community Council)

Cllr Geraint Hopkins (County Councillor)

Cllr David Edlin

Cllr Grahame Day

Cllr Margaret David

Cllr Cheryl Hyde

Cllr Ray Jeffries

Cllr Eric Hoole

Cllr Derek Price