Southwark Council to close two schools over falling school rolls
The council leadership agreed to the closures at a meeting on Tuesday in line with recommendations made in a report.Council leader Kieron Williams said: "The two decisions that we have got to contemplate this morning as cabinet I know are very difficult ones for people who are very attached to their schools as I am to my children's schools, so we understand they are very sensitive decisions and difficult ones to work through."There were talks to merge Charlotte Sharman and another school called St Jude's Primary however this plan fell through and Charlotte Sharman continued to struggle financially.An online petition to save the school from closure which has received more than 1,000 signatures has accused Southwark Council of not fully exploring other options such as merging with another school, securing additional funding or increasing enrolment outreach.
'Very, very sad day'
David Workman, chair of governors at Charlotte Sharman, told cabinet members: "Since last year we have been engaging willingly and effectively with the local authority to look at our financial situation and try and put mitigations in place."There are alternative options we have put forward and to not give us the time to act more decisively and creatively after those two lengthy processes which have taken our bandwidth as it were, is to possibly neglect what might be possible in terms of preserving the school community."Sonia Phippard, chair of governors at the St Mary Magdalene school, said it had served the community for 170 years and that the council's decision marked a "very, very sad day".
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
16 minutes ago
- The Guardian
China-backed centres at UK universities under threat from new free speech laws
Confucius Institutes at universities across England are under threat from new free speech rules, setting off urgent talks between ministers, vice-chancellors and regulators over the fate of the China-backed language and culture centres. Universities fear that the new regulations imposed by the Office for Students (OfS) this month will cause legal headaches with their Chinese partners, including the government in Beijing, and could lead to some being closed. University leaders claim they have been left in the dark by England's regulator over whether or not they are breaking the new rules, which bar foreign governments from vetting staff employed at the institutes. The 20 Confucius Institutes operating in England – including at the universities of Manchester, Coventry and Liverpool – are partnerships between each university, a Chinese university, and an arm of the Chinese state that provides funding. They offer Mandarin classes and promote cultural events but critics allege they also act as a Trojan horse within the education system. The Department for Education (DfE) said it 'welcomed a range of international partnerships with UK higher education' but that they had to comply with UK laws and regulations. 'It is for individual higher education providers to assess whether the criteria of existing arrangements would have the effect of restricting free speech and take steps to address that,' the DfE said. Jacqui Smith, the skills minister, said the government wanted to ensure that universities were 'places of rigorous debate' for all views. Smith said: 'Any attempt by a foreign state to intimidate, harass or harm individuals in the UK will not be tolerated. The government has robust measures in place to prevent this activity, including updated powers and offences through the National Security Act. 'We are also working directly with the Office for Students to support universities in safeguarding free speech and tackling any form of harassment on campus.' China's embassy in London did not respond to a request for comment. The new guidance is likely to force the universities to rewrite agreements with the institutes or face sanctions for breaching the OfS's free speech regulations in England, particularly new rules that punish universities involved with 'a foreign-funded institute [that] imposes an ideological test' as a condition of employment. One critical group, UK-China Transparency, says Chinese staff applying to work in the institutes have been asked to provide references to their 'political attitude' and be vetted by a committee of China's ruling Communist party. A spokesperson for the OfS said: 'Where universities or colleges enter into agreements with any country, they must ensure that they continue to uphold freedom of speech within the law and academic freedom. Where they cannot do this, they should immediately take all necessary steps to amend or terminate the agreement. 'Our guidance is clear, for example, that the imposition of any kind of ideological test as a condition of employment would be unacceptable.' Several universities contacted by the Guardian declined to comment publicly. But university leaders said they have asked the OfS for more time to investigate and negotiate with their partners. A spokesperson for the OfS said: 'Any institution not meeting their free speech obligations should take urgent action.' A spokesperson for Lancaster University said: 'Lancaster University is fully committed to upholding the right to freedom of speech for all staff and students. Along with our sector colleagues, we are carefully considering if there are any potential implications in the new guidance for our Confucius Institute, which plays an important role in our internationally diverse academic community.' One university said that the situation was complicated by the OfS refusing to indicate which arrangements would be allowed under the new regulations. A spokesperson for Universities UK, which represents vice-chancellors, said: 'UK universities are committed to upholding free speech and academic freedom. They work hard to protect these fundamental freedoms and meet significant legal duties in this area set out by the Office for Students. 'This commitment extends to the partnerships universities have with institutions around the world, which bring important economic and social benefits to the UK.'
Telegraph
16 minutes ago
- Telegraph
‘A Palestinian state promises to be oppressive, corrupt and radicalised'
Sir Keir Starmer has announced his plan for the UK to officially recognise a Palestinian state in September unless Israel meets a number of conditions. The Prime Minister laid out these terms in a speech at Downing Street. They include Israel agreeing to a ceasefire in Gaza and committing to a two-state solution. In a Telegraph poll, readers were overwhelmingly opposed to the decision, with 86 per cent of over 50,000 voters saying Palestine should not be recognised. Toby Roberts, a Telegraph reader, is stringently opposed to the idea of a Palestinian state, saying: 'There is no evidence the Palestinians are capable of establishing and running a viable state, and a great deal of evidence to suggest that they are not. 'A Palestinian state promises to be oppressive, corrupt, impoverished, aid-dependent, resentful, radicalised, and riven by vicious internal factionalism.' He concludes that it is 'a mystery to me how anyone can think that such an outcome would be in the interests of the neighbouring Arab states or the West'. Margaret Northey, another reader, says Hamas does not want a two-state solution and, as a result of Sir Keir's announcement, 'Hamas will now have even more reason not to agree to a ceasefire'. John Culley echoes this sentiment, expressing dismay that conditions have been imposed on Israel but not on Hamas: 'If we are going to recognise Palestine, surely the conditionality should be aimed at the Palestinians, what about releasing the hostages and Hamas surrendering and/or dissolving itself. 'The current conditional approach still gives the Israeli's a partial veto over the process and incentivises Hamas to try and provoke Israel. It is absolutely bonkers diplomacy.' Nancy Brooks remarks that she thought the report of Sir Keir's announcement must be 'incomplete' as no demand was made that the remaining hostages be released, adding: 'Clearly, a 'solution' is not what this is about, entirely a vote-gathering exercise. Shame on him.' Another reader agrees that the announcement was intended for a domestic as well as international audience: 'Starmer's focus on Gaza is an indication of where power and influence now lies in the Labour Party and the organs of government. 'His pronouncement had nothing to do with peace, justice, morality, or ending the war. It was a piece of theatre pandering to Labour's shrinking voter base; gesture politics of the most shameless kind.' 'The only solution is a two-state one' A minority of Telegraph readers sought to make the case in support of the Prime Minister's announcement, with one saluting Sir Keir for having 'the leadership to stand up to bullying and intimidation from Trump and Netanyahu'. Hedley Smith argues that the announcement did not reward Hamas and 'you either recognise a state out of principle or you don't', adding: 'The conditions of statehood are either met or they are not: it shouldn't be conditional and used like a bargaining chip. I think they should have been a state a long time ago and I don't believe that right can be bargained away.' Nik Hill and Jennifer Morris both take a historical view when it came to arguing in favour of recognising Palestinian statehood. Nik said: 'The UN called for an independent Palestine and Israel to be recognised back in 1947. It's about time it actually happened. 'That's not rewarding Hamas (no Hamas in the West Bank for example). It's simply accepting that the only solution is a two-state one.' Jennifer concurred and cited the Balfour Declaration of 1917 that expressed British support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine but also that the rights of the existing inhabitants would be protected. She says that no government 'stepped in as Israel took more land for their settlements' and that 'it is time to do the right thing' for the Palestinians. 'The Arab world gets it. Starmer doesn't' Many readers also compared and contrasted the reaction of the British state with that of the Arab world. Soon after Sir Keir's announcement, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Egypt called for Hamas to surrender control of Gaza and disarm. Natalie Brooks writes that the Prime Minister's ultimatum to Israel 'has proven to be as ineffectual and meaningless as he is… even Arab nations are suggesting Hamas needs to come to the table'. Other readers weigh in: 'You couldn't make it up! Arab nations insist that Hamas surrenders, while the British Prime Minister (unintentionally, no doubt) offers it encouragement to continue! The Arab world gets it. Starmer doesn't.'
Telegraph
16 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Who cares if old millionaires leave the country? It's the smart young people we should worry about
Every few weeks, it seems like another millionaire packs up and leaves the UK for the United Arab Emirates or South Africa or Monaco or Italy. Fed up or fearful of the Government and its threats against the wealthy, they are fleeing to somewhere more welcoming. The impact may be sorely felt by the estate agents and restaurants that line the streets of central London. But by the Treasury? Probably not. Most of these people will have structured their affairs to be extremely tax-efficient, and shielded from the whims of an anti-wealth government. These aren't the people we should be worrying about. Instead, we should be concerned by the trail of young, highly educated young people leaving the UK because they have no faith in a future on these shores. They are moving to start their lives somewhere else – taking with them not only their taxes, but their everyday spending, property deposits and investment pots – not to mention lucrative skills and ideas. They're not currently super wealthy, but they could be in the future. They are ambitious 'Henrys' – high earners not rich yet – who are ready to start businesses and create wealth. There is no dataset to show the movement of these people, and it's worrying that they are essentially disappearing without a trace. We'll only see it in fewer home-grown millionaires making money and paying taxes, and a drop in the number of new companies – which create their own ecosystems of employment, wealth generation and tax receipts. Some 28pc of British people aged 18-30 are either actively planning or have seriously considered emigrating, according to a survey by the Adam Smith Institute, a think tank. Anecdotally, they started leaving a while ago – to Spain on a digital nomad visa in search of a lower cost of living, or the Netherlands, using a skilled worker visa and lured by huge tax breaks. Here, staff recruited from abroad receive a tax-free allowance worth 27pc of their salary every year for five years. Why can't we treat our home-grown talent to the same incentives? One 20-something tech worker – a friend of a friend – who moved to Amsterdam earns less than he did in the UK, but makes a huge tax saving and, crucially for him, has a far better quality of life than he did in London. His plan is to start a business, qualify for Dutch citizenship and live his life (and spend his money) in the EU. Another earns around £100k in Barcelona but pays just €500 (£432) rent a month, saving the rest in a quest to retire early (and not in Britain). And who can blame a couple moving to Dubai to see if they can double their salaries in Britain and actually live a little? High taxes – not just on income but on property purchases and inherited wealth – are driving out many of these escapees. The tax system kills ambition and penalises aspiration, particularly for high-earning families with small children, who we should want to build their homes in this country. But worse than the tax bills is the anti-rich rhetoric – the threat that everything you work for could one day be taken away from you, and the implication that wealth is dirty, and success is shameful. Who would want to stick around in a country that punishes people who work hard, save diligently and build anew? This isn't helped by the growing feeling that nothing works here. A housing market that largely prohibits people from buying near where they work, especially in London and high-tech areas like Oxford and Cambridge. Terrible commutes, insane childcare costs and no doctors' appointments – all topped off by sluggish wage growth. Even if these escapees earn less than they do in Britain, rents and mortgage rates are often much lower, and a better quality of life is simply more attainable. Let's stop worrying about the odd multi-millionaire packing up and following his offshore wealth, and focus more on the future talent pouring away from Britain.
