Denied A Voice
Denied A Voice
As the independent consultation on an Academy for the Rother Valley draws to a close, NAME campaigners renew their grave concerns this week that locals have “been denied a voice”. Further anecdotal evidence has been brought to the NAME campaign, raising worries over the structure, process and potential outcome of the survey as part of the consultation. “I am pleased that other parents share my concerns,” said Sally Payn, a parent interviewed in her own home. “This survey was meant to be a consultation and at no point was I asked whether I was in favour of it or not.” Her experiences echo those of others who have contacted NAME, complaining that the survey presents the academy as decided, and parents could only comment accordingly. “When I was asked where it should be built I replied that it should not be built. I was told that was ‘not going to happen’.” She was therefore deeply dissatisfied that her answer was entered in the “don’t know” box.
Midhurst Mother Helen O’Connell was approached in the car park in Budgen’s by a market researcher. However, she was dismayed to discover that her views would not be taken after all because her child was too young to count. “The lady wanted to know if I’d be willing to give a few minutes of my time to answer questions, but then it turned out she only wanted to take these down if my child was Intermediate or Grammar School age,” said Mrs O’Connell. “I was very irritated that I was denied the right to express my opinions, when asked, on a matter as important as this.”
So far, NAME has heard from concerned parents in Midhurst and north of Midhurst. “Given the wide geographical spread of those who could send their children to the proposed Academy, how much of this area has been covered by the researchers?” asked NAME campaigner Simon Boxley. “We worry that pockets of parents have not even been given the opportunity to have their say over something which will affect them for many years to come.” The NAME campaign has sought clarification and assurances from the market researchers ORB and the independent consultants DJB who commissioned ORB. The Associate Director for ORB has written, “As with all of our work this survey has been completed in a thorough and professional manner - which includes the conduct of our interviewers and the research materials employed”.
NAME has some sympathy for researchers asked to conduct interviews under difficult circumstances, with little or no information and in great haste. “However, the people of the Rother Valley should not have been three times denied a voice, once because their children were the wrong age, twice because of where they live, three times because their answers don’t match the one-sided questions” said Mr Boxley. “We are working hard on behalf of those who feel they have been denied a true voice as part of this consultation,” stated NAME campaigner Lizz Tinder, “We know that people want to have their say. 88% of nearly 200 respondents on our blog poll felt that West Sussex were not conducting a true consultation. We welcome an independent survey gauging public opinion, but we need assurances on the integrity of it.”
“This issue has been brought to the NAME campaign, and we feel it is our duty to press for transparency, so that people have confidence in the findings of the survey. For those people who feel that they have been denied a voice, NAME is conducting its own survey. We recognise that our findings are unlikely to be deemed valid in this consultation, but the public might be interested to know what people think. If you would like to participate, you can log on to http://namecampaign.blogspot.com/ or email a request to namecampaign@yahoo.com . If you prefer pen and paper, please contact Lizz Tinder in the first instance on 01730 821464”
As the independent consultation on an Academy for the Rother Valley draws to a close, NAME campaigners renew their grave concerns this week that locals have “been denied a voice”. Further anecdotal evidence has been brought to the NAME campaign, raising worries over the structure, process and potential outcome of the survey as part of the consultation. “I am pleased that other parents share my concerns,” said Sally Payn, a parent interviewed in her own home. “This survey was meant to be a consultation and at no point was I asked whether I was in favour of it or not.” Her experiences echo those of others who have contacted NAME, complaining that the survey presents the academy as decided, and parents could only comment accordingly. “When I was asked where it should be built I replied that it should not be built. I was told that was ‘not going to happen’.” She was therefore deeply dissatisfied that her answer was entered in the “don’t know” box.
Midhurst Mother Helen O’Connell was approached in the car park in Budgen’s by a market researcher. However, she was dismayed to discover that her views would not be taken after all because her child was too young to count. “The lady wanted to know if I’d be willing to give a few minutes of my time to answer questions, but then it turned out she only wanted to take these down if my child was Intermediate or Grammar School age,” said Mrs O’Connell. “I was very irritated that I was denied the right to express my opinions, when asked, on a matter as important as this.”
So far, NAME has heard from concerned parents in Midhurst and north of Midhurst. “Given the wide geographical spread of those who could send their children to the proposed Academy, how much of this area has been covered by the researchers?” asked NAME campaigner Simon Boxley. “We worry that pockets of parents have not even been given the opportunity to have their say over something which will affect them for many years to come.” The NAME campaign has sought clarification and assurances from the market researchers ORB and the independent consultants DJB who commissioned ORB. The Associate Director for ORB has written, “As with all of our work this survey has been completed in a thorough and professional manner - which includes the conduct of our interviewers and the research materials employed”.
NAME has some sympathy for researchers asked to conduct interviews under difficult circumstances, with little or no information and in great haste. “However, the people of the Rother Valley should not have been three times denied a voice, once because their children were the wrong age, twice because of where they live, three times because their answers don’t match the one-sided questions” said Mr Boxley. “We are working hard on behalf of those who feel they have been denied a true voice as part of this consultation,” stated NAME campaigner Lizz Tinder, “We know that people want to have their say. 88% of nearly 200 respondents on our blog poll felt that West Sussex were not conducting a true consultation. We welcome an independent survey gauging public opinion, but we need assurances on the integrity of it.”
“This issue has been brought to the NAME campaign, and we feel it is our duty to press for transparency, so that people have confidence in the findings of the survey. For those people who feel that they have been denied a voice, NAME is conducting its own survey. We recognise that our findings are unlikely to be deemed valid in this consultation, but the public might be interested to know what people think. If you would like to participate, you can log on to http://namecampaign.blogspot.com/ or email a request to namecampaign@yahoo.com . If you prefer pen and paper, please contact Lizz Tinder in the first instance on 01730 821464”
Labels: Academies
posted by West Sussex Teachers' Association at
3:04 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home