Criticism over proposals to close sixth forms in county
A Powys County Council learning and skills scrutiny committee meeting on Friday saw three options revealed as the outcome of a strategic review into post-16 education.
The preferred option would see a sixth form college with one management team set up across two sites in Brecon and Newtown, while another college would be set up across a number of Welsh medium schools.
Councillor Chloe Masefield, who represents Crickhowell, said she had "significant concerns" about the review.
The options will be subject to an "engagement" process which will allow people to give their views on the proposals over the next six months.
Council education staff stressed the current model with all schools having their own sixth form was not "financially viable".
The need to address post-16 provision has also been highlighted by education watchdog Estyn in a scathing report on the department published in March.
One option could see a sixth form college set up with one board of governors and management team across two sites in Brecon and Newtown.
Similarly, a sixth form college would be based across Welsh medium all-through schools at Ysgol Bro Hyddgen in Machynlleth, Bro Caereinion in Llanfair Caereinion and potentially Builth Wells.
The Welsh medium sixth form would be run separately.
Councillor will not resign despite critical report
Wales-England border school taken off closure list
Specialist school needs big improvement - watchdog
Crickhowell has the biggest sixth form in Powys with many pupils coming from Monmouthshire and Blaenau Gwent.
"Crickhowell sixth form is operating incredibly successfully, bringing in students and funding from across the border and there's no argument to say that we should be closing it," Masefield said.
She warned "every single person in the area of Crickhowell" would object to the proposals.
Council Conservative group leader Aled Davies, who represents Llansilin and Llanrhaedr-ym-Mochnant, said he was concerned at the "lack of vision" of what Powys education could look like in 15 to 20 years' time.
Davies said successful sixth forms could be "swept up and lost" and that the work should focus on those sixth forms with small pupil numbers.
Sue McNicholas, who represents Ynyscedwyn near Ystradgynlais, said the area would lose pupils "in droves" across the border.
Plaid Cymru's Bryn Davies who represents Banwy, Llanfihangel and Llanwddyn, said for many school pupils in the north of Powys, Newtown is a distant place.
He said: "The only central location in the north I can see at the moment for this is in Welshpool, which was the old (Montgomeryshire) county town.
"It would be much more suitable for an English medium sixth form."
He asked whether this could be put forward as a potential option to be considered.
Dr Richard Jones, director of education, told the committee there had been "thorough engagement" ahead of the model being introduced and that "learning from that" had been taken onboard.
Dr Jones said: "That's provided us with a framework for three options to go out to engagement".
He said he believed going out to engagement without options would take the council "back to that pre Powys Sixth point", which was rolled out in 2022 with a focus on collaboration between schools.
Recommendations from the committee will be added to the report which is expected to go before the Liberal Democrat and Labour cabinet for a decision later this month to start the engagement process.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
4 hours ago
Appeals court upholds restrictions on Los Angeles immigration arrests
An appeals court upheld a lower court's order to temporarily block federal immigration agents from conducting immigration-related arrests in Los Angeles without probable cause. In the ruling on Friday night, the ninth circuit court of appeals agreed with a federal judge that immigration agents cannot use race, ethnicity or other factors, including speaking Spanish or speaking English with an accent, as the basis for reasonable suspicion to stop people. 'We agree with the district court that, in the context of the Central District of California, the four enumerated factors at issue -- apparent race, ethnicity, speaking Spanish or speaking English with an accent, particular location and type of work, even when considered together -- describe only a broad profile and do not demonstrate reasonable suspicion for any particular stop,' the three judge panel said. The appeals court found that the Trump administration did not dispute in filings that definitive stops in Los Angeles have occurred based on the factors and did not dispute the district court's conclusion that the reliance on them 'does not satisfy the constitutional requirement of reasonable suspicion.' The judges concluded that plaintiffs 'are likely to succeed' in showing that the Trump administration stopped and detained people based on their race, place of work and language. Last month, immigrant advocacy groups filed a lawsuit accusing the Trump administration of unconstitutional sweeps in Los Angeles. A hearing in the case is scheduled for September.
CNBC
4 hours ago
- CNBC
Appeals court keeps order blocking Trump administration from indiscriminate immigration sweeps
A federal appeals court ruled Friday night to uphold a lower court's temporary order blocking the Trump administration from conducting indiscriminate immigration stops and arrests in Southern California. A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held a hearing Monday afternoon at which the federal government asked the court to overturn a temporary restraining order issued July 12 by Judge Maame E. Frimpong, arguing it hindered their enforcement of immigration law. Immigrant advocacy groups filed suit last month accusing President Donald Trump's administration of systematically targeting brown-skinned people in Southern California during the administration's crackdown on illegal immigration. The lawsuit included three detained immigrants and two U.S. citizens as plaintiffs. In her order, Frimpong said there was a "mountain of evidence" that federal immigration enforcement tactics were violating the Constitution. She wrote the government cannot use factors such as apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, presence at a location such as a tow yard or car wash, or someone's occupation as the only basis for reasonable suspicion to detain someone. The appeals court panel agreed and questioned the government's need to oppose an order preventing them from violating the constitution. "If, as Defendants suggest, they are not conducting stops that lack reasonable suspicion, they can hardly claim to be irreparably harmed by an injunction aimed at preventing a subset of stops not supported by reasonable suspicion," the judges wrote. A hearing for a preliminary injunction, which would be a more substantial court order as the lawsuit proceeds, is scheduled for September. The Los Angeles region has been a battleground with the Trump administration over its aggressive immigration strategy that spurred protests and the deployment of the National Guard and Marines for several weeks. Federal agents have rounded up immigrants without legal status to be in the U.S. from Home Depots, car washes, bus stops, and farms, many of whom have lived in the country for decades. Among the plaintiffs is Los Angeles resident Brian Gavidia, who was shown in a video taken by a friend on June 13 being seized by federal agents as he yells, "I was born here in the states, East LA bro!" They want to "send us back to a world where a U.S. citizen ... can be grabbed, slammed against a fence and have his phone and ID taken from him just because he was working at a tow yard in a Latino neighborhood," American Civil Liberties Union attorney Mohammad Tajsar told the court Monday. The federal government argued that it hadn't been given enough time to collect and present evidence in the lawsuit, given that it was filed shortly before the July 4 holiday and a hearing was held the following week. "It's a very serious thing to say that multiple federal government agencies have a policy of violating the Constitution," attorney Jacob Roth said. He also argued that the lower court's order was too broad, and that immigrant advocates did not present enough evidence to prove that the government had an official policy of stopping people without reasonable suspicion. He referred to the four factors of race, language, presence at a location, and occupation that were listed in the temporary restraining order, saying the court should not be able to ban the government from using them at all. He also argued that the order was unclear on what exactly is permissible under law. "Legally, I think it's appropriate to use the factors for reasonable suspicion," Roth said The judges sharply questioned the government over their arguments. "No one has suggested that you cannot consider these factors at all," Judge Jennifer Sung said. However, those factors alone only form a "broad profile" and don't satisfy the reasonable suspicion standard to stop someone, she said. Sung, a Biden appointee, said that in an area like Los Angeles, where Latinos make up as much as half the population, those factors "cannot possibly weed out those who have undocumented status and those who have documented legal status." She also asked: "What is the harm to being told not to do something that you claim you're already not doing?" Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass called the Friday night decision a "victory for the rule of law" and said the city will protect residents from the "racial profiling and other illegal tactics" used by federal agents.
Boston Globe
7 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Appeals court keeps order blocking Trump administration from indiscriminate immigration sweeps
In her order, Frimpong said there was a 'mountain of evidence' that federal immigration enforcement tactics were violating the Constitution. She wrote the government cannot use factors such as apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, presence at a location such as a tow yard or car wash, or someone's occupation as the only basis for reasonable suspicion to detain someone. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The appeals court panel agreed and questioned the government's need to oppose an order preventing them from violating the constitution. Advertisement 'If, as Defendants suggest, they are not conducting stops that lack reasonable suspicion, they can hardly claim to be irreparably harmed by an injunction aimed at preventing a subset of stops not supported by reasonable suspicion,' the judges wrote. A hearing for a preliminary injunction, which would be a more substantial court order as the lawsuit proceeds, is scheduled for September. Advertisement The Los Angeles region has been a battleground with the Trump administration over its aggressive immigration strategy that spurred protests and the deployment of the National Guards and Marines for several weeks. Federal agents have rounded up immigrants without legal status to be in the U.S. from Home Depots, car washes, bus stops, and farms, many who have lived in the country for decades. Among the plaintiffs is Los Angeles resident Brian Gavidia, who was shown in a video taken by a friend June 13 being seized by federal agents as he yells, 'I was born here in the states, East LA bro!' They want to 'send us back to a world where a U.S. citizen ... can be grabbed, slammed against a fence and have his phone and ID taken from him just because he was working at a tow yard in a Latino neighborhood,' American Civil Liberties Union attorney Mohammad Tajsar told the court Monday. The federal government argued that it hadn't been given enough time to collect and present evidence in the lawsuit, given that it was filed shortly before the July 4 holiday and a hearing was held the following week. 'It's a very serious thing to say that multiple federal government agencies have a policy of violating the Constitution,' attorney Jacob Roth said. He also argued that the lower court's order was too broad, and that immigrant advocates did not present enough evidence to prove that the government had an official policy of stopping people without reasonable suspicion. He referred to the four factors of race, language, presence at a location, and occupation that were listed in the temporary restraining order, saying the court should not be able to ban the government from using them at all. He also argued that the order was unclear on what exactly is permissible under law. Advertisement 'Legally, I think it's appropriate to use the factors for reasonable suspicion,' Roth said The judges sharply questioned the government over their arguments. 'No one has suggested that you cannot consider these factors at all,' Judge Jennifer Sung said. However, those factors alone only form a 'broad profile' and don't satisfy the reasonable suspicion standard to stop someone, she said. Sung, a Biden appointee, said that in an area like Los Angeles, where Latinos make up as much as half the population, those factors 'cannot possibly weed out those who have undocumented status and those who have documented legal status.' She also asked: 'What is the harm to being told not to do something that you claim you're already not doing?' Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass called the Friday night decision a 'victory for the rule of law' and said the city will protect residents from the 'racial profiling and other illegal tactics' used by federal agents.
