The document summarizes a staff meeting to discuss plans for decanting Island School during its redevelopment. It outlines three potential models for splitting the school across temporary sites: 1) A phase split that separates younger and older students. 2) A house split that divides the school into two complete schools based on house system. 3) A faculty split that divides students and teachers by academic departments between two sites. Concerns are raised about how each model would impact curriculum, resources, guidance, and school identity. Staff are asked to consider the pros, cons, and interesting aspects of each to help determine the best approach. A working group will be formed to represent staff perspectives during the decant

1. Island School Redevelopment
Decant Planning - Staff Meeting
Monday 27th January 2014

2. 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 staff about current position with regard to finding
suitable decant premises;
● Invite initial questions and comments from staff;
● Discuss timeline for the decant planning.

3. 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;
● 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;

4. Some context
● Mount Parker - decision to withdraw from trying to secure
this site due to local lobby and the support these 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.

5. Timetable Issues

6. 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

7. 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.

8. 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

9. 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 dues 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)

10. 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.

11. Model 2 - House Split
School 1: DEF
School 2: NRW
Years 7 -13
600 Students
Years 7-13
600 Students

12. 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

13. 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

14. Model 3 - Faculty Split
School 1:
School 2:
4 Faculties accommodation
4 Faculties accommodation

15. 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?

16. Decant Working Group
To ....
● Represent all staff on issues to do with the decant of the
school;
● Advise ESF and school redevelopment ‘team’ on issues to do
with staffing, curriculum, guidance etc.