Generations of pupils will regret this school decision

Published: 19 November, 2010

• IT would not be right to let the letter by David Barry, chairman of Ashmount School governors, go unchallenged (Building fit for school, November 5).

The new Ashmount School will be cramped (smaller than government-recommended standards), insecure (the Metropolitan Police do not support the move) and remote (two-thirds of the catchment area will be in Haringey and it will involve long journeys for many Islington children). 

By comparison, the present site is spacious, secure and convenient. There is absolutely no reason why a new school could not be built on the current site. The report commissioned by Islington Council concluded that refurbishment of the current building was an option too.

Parents and governors of Ashmount School have been convinced by the previous administration in Islington that moving was the only way to get a new school. Actually, it will get a substantially worse education for their children than a new or refurbished school on the current site. The only reason why Islington proposed a move of the school was to get more space for housing by selling off the current school site for that purpose. It wasn’t for educational benefit at all. Which is not surprising, as there is none.

Generations of children will regret the bad decision made with the support of Mr Barry and his colleagues. It may be too late to put it right, but not too late to draw attention to the foolishness of the decision.

FRANCIS WILKINSON
Ashmount Site Action Group

• YOUR article (Go-ahead for school ‘ignores ombudsman’, November 5) repeats a statement by Peter Berresford Ellis, made on behalf of Ashmount Site Action Group (ASAG). It was an excellent example of how ASAG works.  

It uses a three-part technique. First, begin by threatening your opponents. This time, as so often, a threat of legal action. Usually it threatens legal action against Islington Council, which has a broad back, but it is still unpleasant for the officials concerned. And the legal advice the council must seek costs public money.  

Some of its legal threats have been against individuals, including neighbours, who have the temerity to express a contrary opinion. Other tactics include shouting people down at meetings. 

Second, make anyone who opposes you appear disreputable by innuendo. In this case announce in dark tones that you have made a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman, whom the council are now “ignoring”. It probably has complained, but, frankly, so what? Anyone can complain to the Ombudsman; the question is whether the complaint has any merit.

Third, then make false statements in support of your position. For example, “Many residents oppose the scheme”. But when the council held a consultation among residents two-thirds were in favour of the school moving. 

Also, the new site is “cramped”, “smaller than government standards” with “less space” than the current one. But the new site is four times the size of the current one. It is also a beautiful site; a countryside setting in central London. Extraordinary. As, unfortunately, is ASAG.

DAVID BARRY
Chair of governors, Ashmount and Whitehall Park area resident
Dresden Road, N19