Decant second thoughts (2)
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Decant second thoughts (2)

on

  • 3,546 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
3,546
Views on SlideShare
227
Embed Views
3,319

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

6 Embeds 3,319

http://isredevelopment.wordpress.com 3309
http://131.253.14.98 4
http://prlog.ru 2
https://isredevelopment.wordpress.com 2
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com 1
http://www.google.com.hk 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Decant second thoughts (2) Decant second thoughts (2) Presentation Transcript

  • Island School Redevelopment Contingency Planning - Parent Meeting Thursday 6th March 2014
  • Aims ● To share the issues around decant with regard to how we might split the school; ● To discuss the consequences for curriculum, staff movement and resourcing of the same; ● To inform parents about current position with regard to finding suitable decant premises; ● Invite questions and comments from parents; ● Discuss timeline for the decant planning; ● To invite parents to enlist for parent working group.
  • Some context ● We are limited in the ways in which we can split the school basically it needs to be split in two equally sized ‘parts’; ● Significant commitment from ESFC to do what it takes to secure continuity of excellence in teaching and learning; ● Meeting with ESFC Senior Management Team on Tuesday 18th March; ● Photos of KJS decant site ● Partial decant not an option; ● Decant period estimated to be from January or July 2017 until August 2021 (could possibly be 2016). ● It is more than likely that we will be decanting into two very similar sized schools;
  • Some context ● Mount Parker - decision to withdraw from trying to secure this site due to local lobby and the support this had from LegCo members; ● Tseung Kwan O site not an Island School site. ● Around 12 sites have been ‘offered’ by EDB for consideration in locations like Sham Shui Po, Tai Po, Sha Tin, Kowloon, Tuen Mun. ● Issues such as lack of space, availability for use at the right time, state of the buildings, location, feasibility of drop off and pick up etc have all led to us dismissing these ● Only one small 17 classroom school on the island at Aberdeen available. ● Currently the only two sites that are viable are two in Tai Wai (One a very short walking distance from ShaTin Wai MTR and the other very close to Tai Wai MTR)
  • Timetable Issues
  • What are the issues? Main Criteria Headings ● Curriculum – What are the implications for the curriculum? How will each model promote / inhibit our curriculum aims? ● Resourcing / buildings– How will each model optimise or stretch deployment of resources (in the widest sense)? ● Guidance – what are the issues and implications for guidance and progression in each model? ● Timetabling - how does the timetable itself limit the options open to us. Will the way the curriculum is organized have to change during decant? ● Ethos / School Identity – opportunities for growth and development / obstacles to the same for each model? Particularly relevant to the House System ● Stakeholder interests - what are the needs and wants of different stakeholder groups – particularly parents? ● Location and Travel - are there any issues to do with location, access, travel logistics that we need to be aware of? ● Student transferring between schools over time ● Other issues
  • PMI ● What is PMI ○ Pluses - the benefits of an issue ○ Minuses - the drawbacks of an issue ○ Interesting - that which is neither a plus or a minus that needs to be considered. May suggest an alternative solution.
  • Model 1 - Phase Split School 1: School 2: Years 7 and 8 (360 students) Years 12 and 13 (300 students) ● Total – 660 students Years 9,10 and 11 ● (540 students) ● Total – 540 students
  • Model 1 - Phase Split ● No student movement between sites at all ● Would staff teach on one site or move between the two? . ● Would all Elements on one site constrain the offer? Curriculum ● + Fits emerging model for 9-11 curriculum/ would enable new ‘supergroup’ to bond and form identity; ● I – may lead to staff focussing on years / arbitrary? Would staff teach yrs 7 / 8 and just 6th form in school 1? ● I – what are the pluses and minuses of separating Island Futures students from other years? Resourcing ● - High level of capital resourcing needed in each school due to years 11 and 13 in both; ● - HE guidance needed in both sites; ● - departmental / subject leadership spread over both sites if staff didn’t move. ● + high level of commitment from ESFC to investment. ● - at least two new teacher needed to meet needs of TT ● - need 1 DT, 2 Food, 1 Music, 5 Science rooms on top of existing (early calculation)
  • Model 1 - Phase Split Guidance ● - split of house staff (SHOH in School 1 / HOH in school 2?) ● + vertical tutoring in school 2? ● I - Increase in profile of the tutor as a result of houses being split. New tutor model would need to be developed because of staff moving from site to site during the week. ● - progression issue. Students would move from school to school over time; Ethos / School Identity ● I - compromise the old / herald and build the new? ● - houses fragmented across two sites Other ● I - Elements teachers teach 9,10 and 11 on Wed, Thurs to limit their movement between schools ● + faculties and phases stay together ● I - Faculty move site day by day - rather than split across sites. ● I - could whole faculties be timetabled to be on one site or the other for whole days? ● - No teacher has a home base if they teach across the year range.
  • Model 2 - House Split School 1: DEF School 2: NRW Years 7 -13 600 Students Years 7-13 600 Students
  • Model 2 - House Split ● Two complete schools (+s and - s) ● If staff / students did not move then curriculum choice limited ● Houses intact but separate from each other. Supports guidance. Guidance ● - / + House system remains the same (vertical continuity) – but split ( 3 houses in each school?); ● + No student movement over time; ● + mentorship opportunities conserved. ● + smaller schools (Human Scale Education USA) Ethos / School Identity ● - danger that we become two distinct schools? ● - House system split ● - consistency issue between schools / external comparisons? Other? Other ● + no student movement from school to school ● - communications
  • Model 2 - House Split Curriculum ● + continuity and progression assured in both schools; ● - Elements and minority subjects would be under threat unless offered across both schools therefore necessitating movement; ● I - Offer Elements across both schools and so students in 9,10,11 move on Wed and Thurs? ● I - and for Escape ● - BTEC would have to be on one site because of viability of courses / group sizes. Students have to change house. ● subjects split between two sites. Resourcing ● - Duplication = expensive. Running IB diploma curriculum in both schools would put pressure on small classes and increase need for staffing. IN / EAL / HE etc on both sites. ● - leadership structure duplicated across both schools – expensive; ● + lower schools benefit from more dedicated resourcing in both schools; ● + - staff benefit from teaching full range of years; ● - High level of capital resourcing needed in each school dues to years 11 and 13 in both; ● - HE guidance needed in both sites; ● + high level of commitment from ESFC to investment. ● - 4 extra teachers required (spread across all subjects) ● - need 4 Science, 1 textiles and 2 food rooms extra
  • Model 3 - Faculty Split School 1: School 2: 4 Faculties accommodation 4 Faculties accommodation
  • Model 3 - Faculty Split ● High degrees of student movement for all students. ● Detrimental effect of pastoral care Curriculum ● + - continuity and progression assured; ● + - faculty teams kept together in one place; ● + - all subject resources and support available to full range of students. Resourcing ● - seems inexpensive, but we would need to decommission labs and DT rooms in one of the schools so added refurb cost. ● - 7 Science labs needed, 1 Music, 1 Art, 3 D&T workshops Guidance ● - where would houses reside / where would the structure fit? tracking and supporting students across two sites would affect current quality of guidance and support. Ethos / School Identity ● House system split ● In theory would be one whole school (rather than two smaller ones) - but might not feel like one?
  • Decant Parent Working Group To .... ● Represent parent voice on issues to do with the decant of the school; ● Advise ESF and school of parental issues pertinent to decant planning Parent Focus Group Mondays 5:00pm ● 17th and 31st March; ● 5th and 26th May.