1. Island School Redevelopment Decant Parent Focus Group Meeting Monday 17th March 2014

2. Introductions Defining the purpose of the group and ways of working Update for those unable to make the Information Evening Discussion of parent concerns Ideas for the parent survey and other ways to involve the wider parent body. Planning next steps. Parent voice and involvement in the thinking is .... ... a critical factor in making the schools decant a success; ... embedded in our planning Agenda

3. It is about .... Helping IS ask the right questions of its parents body; Working with IS to engage the whole parent body in effective ways; Representing the broader views of the parent body; Formulating concrete and useful recommendations to the steering group, council and the school leadership team It is less about .... The school providing updates; Parents having a platform to voice personal preferences What is the function of the Parent Focus Group?

4. What might the effect of decant be on the number on roll? What are parents current views on the prospect of decant? Are families moving to avoid being zoned to IS as is widely reported? What are the HR issues to do with decant? What are the costs of decant over and above refurbishment of accommodation? Staffing? Leadership? Compensating for perceived disruption? What will be ESFCs input into the decision about how to split the school be? Key questions for now (and SMT tomorrow)

5. Main Areas of Concern Student wellbeing Staff wellbeing and other staff concerns Continuity of school ethos Continuity of excellence in T&L Others Anticipating and managing parent views and attitudes Predicting the effect on numbers on roll (if any); Managing the response from stakeholders when final decant model announced What are the issues?

6. 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 What are the issues?

7. 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. PMI

8. School 1: Years 7 and 8 (360 students) Years 12 and 13 (300 students) Total 660 students School 2: Years 9,10 and 11 (540 students) Total 540 students Model 1 - Phase Split

9. 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 didnt 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

10. 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 1 - Phase Split

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

12. 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

13. 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 2 - House Split

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

15. 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? Model 3 - Faculty Split