Giants Causeway - Save the Causeway Memorial School Museum

Don't let the North Eastern Education and Library Board 

sacrifice part of our heritage. 

CultureNI video

Encourage NEELB to retain the Causeway School Museum [Clough Williams-Ellis - Rosamond Praeger] http://t.co/C9jtudMEcG
— Nevin Taggart (@NevinT) June 23, 2013

Snapshots of the old lease, including limitations as to use, and some details of the original trustees. [Click 3 dots on bottom right to select All Sizes for a clearer view]

Eleanor Killough**, Executive Officer with the North Eastern Board, commented:

“We are absolutely delighted that the Causeway School Museum has been recognised by such a prestigious organisation. The only other heritage site in Northern Ireland to receive this accolade was the Ulster Museum so we’re definitely in good company!”

“The Sandford Award highlights the importance of the School to local, national and international heritage. It is safe to say we will be celebrating for some time to come!” ... Education News June 2011

[** Eleanor is no longer an NEELB employee]

That was then!

Even though the premises are scheduled for closure at the end of June by the left hand, the right hand, apparently, is still taking bookings. Don't be surprised if a maintenance crew is putting up the shutters or taking out the desks whilst children are enjoying a final session!!!

The closure of this wonderful little museum only became public knowledge in March 2013:

Causeway School future in doubt despite public support

Causeway School Museum to be history

Chairman 'dismayed' by school closure

The proposed closure came like a bolt from the blue to the trustees just two months earlier:

A Board letter dated 28 February announced the postponement of the closure of the school from 31 March to 30 June. I can find no indication of any consultation with other stakeholders or with the general public.

Some of the artefacts will have been gifted, in good faith, by families for display in the museum? Will they be consulted about the fate of these treasures?

The Causeway Memorial School Trust has proposed a one year delay whilst alternative arrangements could be considered by the Board, the Trust and other stakeholders:

Will our elected representatives be able to make Board officials and members see some sense? Give sensible deliberation a chance!

Letter from a Friend - a little history and a proposal for the future.

Sign the petition and invite your friends to do the same

Facebook presence

Some Petition feedback:

• The Causeway School is a unique and valuable resource for local people and schools in particular. As a primary school teacher, with a personal interest in local history, I believe it is the responsibility of bodies such as the NEELB to help support and maintain these kind of projects for future generations.
• This museum is used by schools from Letterkenny in the west to Lisburn in the south and possibly further afield.
• This building brings history to life for the children. It is also of historic interest in an AONB so please keep this beloved place open!
• The Causeway School Museum is a landmark, an architectural gem and an educational resource. It is a place that holds memories for the older people in our community and it creates memories for the young.
• The Causeway School building is a valuable heritage property that is still positively influencing the people of Bushmills, County Antrim, and indeed the world. I look forward to seeing it during my next visit with Bushmills cousins!
• My greatgrandfather is commemorated on the Causeway School. We visited again last month and saw the wonderful educational work that is delivered by the authentic visionary inclusive philosophy that it radiates. Unique and irreplaceable.

Giants Causeway - Save the Causeway Memorial School Museum 2

Giants Causeway - Save the Causeway Memorial School Museum 3

Coleraine High School - Sleight of Hand? 2

Coleraine High School - Sleight of Hand? 1

Save Coleraine High School Petition | GoPetition

Curiouser and Curiouser

Why didn't officials from the North Eastern Education and Library Board (NEELB) adopt a structured approach to consultation with parents, pupils, teachers, principals, governors and other interested parties? The mish-mash illustrated by Appendix 6 in the consultation report appendices makes Basil Fawlty look like a good organiser!

Sectoral Interest Responses

The apparently passive NEELB approach has generated a highly skewed set of responses: the voluntary sector was well to the fore in Larne and Magherafelt, the integrated sector dominated responses in Coleraine and was over-represented in Ballymena and Carrickfergus, and the maintained sector largely opted out of the process.

What guidance was given by Board officials or others in regard to the completion of responses? Why are about 80% of overall responses generated from the controlled sector in a generic/general form? 4880 responses out of a total of 6054 are from the controlled sector. Was a generic response a downloaded on-line form completed by a school and signed by parents and pupils?

Why are a large majority of responses from the integrated sector on-line ones? Was different advice given to different sectors and, if so, by whom?

Coleraine Council Area

 81%** of all responses to the on-line survey were from the Integrated Sector

 54% of all responses to the on-line survey were from pupils

NEELB highlights the positive response by the integrated sector in Coleraine to the on-line survey. Why were on-line responses given such prominence over other forms of response? Should this emphasis not have been made crystal clear to all participants in advance?

What has happened to responses to the survey by parents from Coleraine High School? I'm informed by various sources, including the Save CHS Facebook webpage, that 414 hard copy submissions of the on-line survey were returned by parents to the school yet this figure does not appear in Table 8 or in the amended version of Table 8. Is the change from 47 to 447 in the 'By letter or submission' column an attempt to camouflage the blunder? Were these 414 submissions factored into the deliberations that led to the recommendations that were submitted to the Education Committee (Schools)? Perhaps it's time members of the Committee took a serious look at the consultation process; they could begin by examining the fate of those 414 responses and whether or not the generic/general responses received the same favourable treatment as other responses.

[** addition: According to its own definition, figures released by NEELB in December 2012 for responses in the Coleraine council area to the on-line consultation should have included hard copy responses received. If you add the 414 'missing' CHS responses to the claimed 17 on-line responses for the controlled sector then the NEELB assertion that '81% of all responses to the on-line survey were from the Integrated Sector' plummets to a much more modest 26%.]

Table 8

Table 8 amended

Questionnaires based on the truncated area plan published in May 2013 are to be submitted to NEELB by September 16. When you take out the time taken up by examinations and the school holidays the time left for collective deliberation amounts to little more than a fortnight in September. Why the rush? How can parents and others respond to this second consultation when the recommendations were generated from such a deeply flawed first consultation?

A clear message from the above shambles is that parents and others should give serious thought to second level provision and, if they are dissatisfied with the Board's recommendations, they should submit alternative proposals and lobby school principals, governors and members of the Education Committee (Schools).

The NEELB folks may have left themselves open to a legal challenge; the Education Committee (Schools) may have endorsed a wholly unscientific approach to consultation.

The majority of respondents felt there was little or no account taken of the Maintained; Further Education; Special Educational Needs and Integrated Education sectors, which do not maximise the use of the schools’ estate.

This quote from the NEELB report indicates that respondents would have preferred a collective single area plan for Coleraine so that the burden of change would be carried by all sectors, not mainly by the controlled one.

Added June 23

This is a scan of the NEELB Board agenda for Tuesday, June 25. There's no mention of time or location; I'm told that the meeting begins at 2 pm and that the venue is Board HQ at Lough Road, Antrim. How are members of the public supposed to know what topics are being discussed? Perhaps it's time the Office of the Information Commissioner insisted on greater transparency.

Coleraine High School - Sleight of Hand?

Facebook - Save CHS
Join the conversation

Several curious aspects of the North Eastern Education and Library Board's proposals for post-primary education provision in the Coleraine area have been brought to my attention.

DSD minister - centre

Coleraine regeneration walk - June 2011

The Coleraine Town Centre Master Plan, prepared in conjunction with Coleraine Borough Council and the Department for Social Development, makes several references to education:

Coleraine has an expanding University of Ulster campus with approximately 5,000 students, a large Further Education College in addition to a range of high quality secondary and grammar schools. ..

The figure ground plan also highlights ‘gaps’ in the urban grain, the most notable being the course of the River  Bann, Anderson Park and playing fields and the site of Coleraine High School along Lodge Road. ..

Should plans to relocate Coleraine High School be realised, the opportunity exists to establish a linear park following the course of the Lodge Burn [not to mention residential development - it's merely illustrated].

There's no mention of such relocation plans in the latest NEELB Coleraine area plan [May 2013] so where did this proposal come from and who agreed it?* Companies and families attracted to Coleraine by the promised grammar school provision may have a change of heart if there's a dramatic cut in the number of grammar school places on offer. One estimate I've seen would cut this provision by NEELB and other providers from about 46%, which is close to the average for similar towns, to 26%. As I understand it, Loreto College is no longer a selective grammar school and the other two single-sex grammar schools, with a current intake of just under 1600 pupils, would be replaced by a co-educational selective grammar school, with just under 1000 pupils. [This new voluntary grammar school on the CAI site has to be 'truly a grammar' ie the 990 figure is based on the current number of grade A and B students whereas Loreto can use the voluntary grammar appellation even though it has moved away from the said 'truly grammar' idea. Where's the logic in all of this irrespective of the merits of the different systems? - added 11 April 2014]

Education minister on right**

Task

The Minister is commissioning the Education and Library Boards, working in close conjunction with CCMS and engaging extensively with other school sectors, to develop collective strategic plans on an area basis.

"I wanted the planning authorities to set aside individual, sectoral or institutions' needs and focus on how, as a society, we could best provide for the needs of all children and young people in an area." .. Minister, February 26, 2013

Unfortunately the Minister appears to have put out a mixed message about decision making on area plans on that date:

"That depends on the sector.  If you are referring to the controlled sector, I can say that the decisions will rest with the relevant education and library board.  Decisions for the maintained sector will rest with the maintained sector.  Those bodies will have to be included in the discussions on the way forward for the area planning process.  That will be the deciding factor in signing off on area plans."

The current NEELB area plan fails to fulfil the collective strategic task set by the Minister; it merely produces a plan for the two schools it controls viz Coleraine College and Coleraine High School. The Catholic school sector disappeared from the shared process very early on; the integrated school more recently; Coleraine Academical Institution appears to be maintaining an arms-length relationship; and the Northern Regional College appears to have been overlooked. 

Why has the Education minister permitted such a failure to persist? Will he be presented with an area plan which is little more than a series of plans stitched together and which may have been compromised by commitments given to Coleraine Borough Council and/or the Department for Social Development? Why does he support segregation by religious affiliation but oppose segregation by academic ability?

Do the professional interests of any school governors in the development of the Coleraine Town Centre Master Plan conflict with their duties as governors?

Will parental choice come down to little more than what has been concocted by administrators, principals, governors and trustees, well away from public view? Is 'Putting Pupils First' more than just a slogan?

The Board*** would welcome your comment on the following proposal or any alternative proposal:

Coleraine College to be considered for closure.

Coleraine Academical Institution and Coleraine High School will combine to create two separate co-educational schools under the same school names and management types. 

One school will select its pupils by academic ability and will have a maximum enrolment of 990 pupils by the year 2025 and the other school will be non-selective with a maximum enrolment of 1210 pupils by the year 2025, which would include provision for a Learning Support Centre.

The intake for the three current schools is just over 1800 pupils so does the maximum enrolment of 2200 suggest a possible future closure of Dunluce School in Bushmills?

Responses to the truncated area plan are to be submitted to NEELB by September 16. When you take out the time taken up by examinations and the school holidays the time left for collective deliberation amounts to little more than a fortnight in September. Why the rush? Concerns can be raised with local elected representatives.

* I'm told that the relocation plan was mooted early on in the Master Plan process but that the position since then has softened ie the language used in the final report is misleading.

** Ironically, Coleraine High School is the top achieving 11-19 school in Coleraine yet the NEELB seems determined to give it the chop.

*** Board rules out school merger in Larne area and Cambridge House 'saved'. Does this mean that NEELB officials have paid insufficient attention to public opinion and that, in general, controlled schools are not receiving adequate protection from the Minister and the Department?

Added 13 June 2013

Ballee Community High School criticism of NEELB Ballymena Area Plan [pdf file] includes:

The NEELB proposal presented for Consultation does not have the unanimous cross-community or cross-sectoral support preferred.

It has generated much well-founded concern and anxiety amongst Pupils, Parents, School Governors and the wider Ballymena Community and very importantly it does not fully deliver on the Minister of Education’s Terms of Reference for Area Planning or indeed the Department of Education’s Sustainable Schools Policy.

The NEELB proposal largely puts the power of Institutions before Pupils.

Coleraine High School - Sleight of Hand? 2

Ballycastle - Carrickmore Road - In the Public Interest 2

Ballycastle - Carrickmore Road - In the Public Interest 1

Povall presentation to Council and discussion - 25 July 2011

Old Postcard

The tussle for the conversion of part of a public road to something akin

to a gated private drive-way with pedestrian access continues. 

When Moyle District Council goes into committee to discuss the issue it increases speculation that Council does not wish ratepayers and other members of the public to know what is being done or being conceded in their name:

April 8 MDC Minutes

There is no mention of the Abandonment Order in the February minutes during a session which was also held in committee:

February 25 MDC Minutes

Sources tell me that the Council's current position is that it will no longer oppose abandonment should a request to Roads Service for abandonment be made. If correct, some folks have put the cart before the horse but have not informed the ratepayers or other members of the public that an about-turn has taken place. I'm informed that a recorded vote was taken and, when the minutes appear, we will know which councillors changed their stances.

Perhaps its also worth pointing out that Council minutes are now being published in a format that is not searchable and, presumably, this is in breach of the Information Commissioner's Model Publication Scheme.

Planning Service continues to act in a peculiar manner. It strongly opposed the proposed redevelopment of the site and then just a few months later slipped the plans through in a batch of eight for recommendation of acceptance; the latter took place in a pre-Christmas council meeting.

In October 2012, the Enforcement branch ordered the site owner to remove unapproved works:

The lights, security hut and toilet have been taken away but the kerbing remains. The date for a positive response to the enforcement order has long since passed but I've found no evidence of further enforcement action.

Just recently Planning Service has put a new planning application through its streamlined procedure, a procedure that removes the application from the Council's monthly scrutiny function.

However, those applications considered of a straight forward non-contentious nature will be circulated to the Council on a weekly list of applications received under the Streamlined Application process.

You'd think by now that the Planning Service would have got the message that there is a measure of contention, that planning officers would have read the reports of their own enforcement officers! The local newspaper advert doesn't indicate that the application has been streamlined!

The new application seeks retrospective permission for the kerbing as well as permission to erect a gate that would straddle most of the public road:

Retention of Land for Use as Domestic Curtilage and Ancillary Works to Include Concrete Kerbing, Gate and Satellite Dish.

Is it really in the public interest that decisions, which may have wider significance, should be taken when the public have been deliberately excluded? Do such actions convey utter contempt by elected representatives and other public servants?