Predicting the numbers of children who may be affected is not easy as so much depends on guessing what parents will do, but we came away with our fears confirmed - the proposals will make it harder for local children to go to their local school since significantly more places are likely to be occupied by siblings who will live further away (nothing against them per se of course but they will crowd out 'non-sibling' children who live nearer).
We have decided to hold a public meeting to see how best to get South Farnham Primary School governors to think again. Publicity for this will be going out in the next couple of days and of course we shall invite the school along to put their case.
Everyone is invited to:
St Martin's Hall Dene Lane Monday 16 January at 20.00.
We hope as many concerned parents as possible can come along to give their views.
Please note that, as Bourne councillors, we anticipate concentrating on the 'Bourne siblings' issue, not others, important as they may be to other groups.
28 comments:
at http://www.surreycommunity.info/bourneresidents that the South Farnham Primary School Board of Governors has been invited to send a speaker so that their view of the issue may be presented at the meeting.
'The only way to guarantee your child a place at South Farnham Juniors is to attend South Farnham Infants - all other options are subject to potential changes in admissions policies. So if I were a parent who could get my infant into SF under the sibling rule, I would, regardless of where I lived and where my nearest infant school was!'
The above post underlines the real issue with the proposal for 2013 and indeed why an increase in the PAN for the Bourne Infants site will not resolve the issue. Under the existing proposals any number of places at the infant school may be potentially swamped with siblings from outlying villages. If the policy is not carefully considered and implemented correctly it cannot simply be changed the following year. Family expectations will then have changed, and the children admitted (unfairly for some) will be present in the system for 7 years not to mention any siblings. Hence the need within the admissions policy for some protection for local children without siblings.
There are many ways to achieve this outcome and indeed fairly to all siblings, and the status quo alone would suffice.
Please all come along to the meeting on Monday 16 Jan where your views will be heard.
PRESS RELEASE FROM CAROLE COCKBURN, MARTIN LEAR AND DAVID MUNRO
LOCAL COUNCILLORS REPRESENTING BOURNE WARD
PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS SOUTH FARNHAM PRIMARY SCHOOL’S ADMISSIONS PROPOSALS FOR 2013
20.00 HOURS MONDAY 16 JANUARY
ST MARTINS HALL DENE LANE
Carole Cockburn, Martin Lear and David Munro, three of the local councillors covering the Bourne ward, are holding a public meeting as above to discuss the proposed admissions for 2013, currently out for consultation. The meeting will focus on the Number One issue for Bourne residents – the proposal that younger siblings of pupils at the Bourne campus and the much larger South Farnham site on Menin Way, will get priority over non-sibling children living closer to the School Lane site.
Councillors have been inundated with concerns from Bourne parents who fear that their child, although living close to the Bourne site, will lose out to siblings living much further away. Councillors believe that these are very real fears and support whole-heartedly a change in the proposals to ensure that Bourne children get a fair chance of attending their local school.
Chaired by Cllr David Munro, the meeting will consider the detail of the proposal, listen to parents’ and others’ concerns and act as a focus for channelling the views of the local community to the school. Initial indications are that it will be very well attended.
The Farnham Herald are warmly invited to attend.
South Farnham School has been invited to send a representative but it is not known at this time whether they will accept the invitation.
David Munro
d.munro@surreycc.gov.uk
01252 792485
Note: As South Farnham Primary School is an academy, they can set their own admissions policies provided they are in conformance with national guidelines. Although Surrey County Council remains the Local Education Authority with the duty of finding a school place for every child, the council has no formal role in setting academies’ admissions policies.
If you want your voice to be heard please come along and join the debate.
SOUTH FARNHAM SCHOOL
4 MENIN WAY FARNHAM SURREY GU9 8DY
Headteacher: A. N. Carter OBE BEd
Telephone O1252 716155 Fax 01252 718260
E-mail: infot@south-farnham.surrey.sch.uk www.south-farnharn.surrey.sch.uk
9 January 2012
Dear Parents,
As you will be aware we are currently consulting on the admission arrangements for 2013. The process of consultation is an opportunity for everyone to make their views known and we have already received many letters and emails relating to the issue. Prior to the consultation the governors have had extensive discussions with the Local Authority and local schools.
Naturally there is much interest in admissions within the area and we are very conscious that anything that can add clarity can only help the process.
To this end we would like to invite all parents to a meeting this week on Friday at 7pm in Menin Way. I realise that this is not necessarily the best evening for a meeting however it is the only evening this week when the school hall is available and I think it is important that we hold this meeting as soon as possible. I anticipate the meeting should not last any longer than one hour.
I look forward to seeing you on Friday 13th January at 7.00pm when we can clarify the governors’ aims and help indicate the way forward.
Yours sincerely,
Andrew Carter
Headteacher
The school letter above states - 'To this end we would like to invite all parents to a meeting this week on Friday at 7pm in Menin Way.'
So, as I am a parent and this letter is in the public domain I assume I am invited to attend.
I fully intend to do so and suggest that any other worried local parents take up this invitation also, even if only to gain a little more information from the man himself before Monday's meeting at St. Martins.
More anger at school's admissions policy
COUNCILLORS, parents and residents in The Bourne and Farnham town centre have spoken out in opposition to proposed changes to South Farnham School's admissions policy.
Meetings have been organised in The Bourne, Farnham town centre and at South Farnham itself to discuss the controversial changes, which if approved would come into effect September 2013.
And county councillor for Farnham South, David Munro, had to censor his online blog (davidmunro.blogspot.com) after two articles on the proposed changes attracted almost 300 responses - some of which he said "exceeded the limits of acceptability."
It comes after South Farnham's governors proposed sweeping changes to its admissions criteria - promising to grant places at The Bourne infants school to siblings of South Farnham junior school children ahead of those living closest to the school, and only granting places at the junior school to children living south of the A31.
Mr Munro, whose ward includes The Bourne. said: "This is a thoroughly bad proposal as it will deny Bourne children the chance to get into their local infants school. Whether the South Farnham governors intended this to happen by accident or design I don't know, but I hope they will reconsider."
Mr Munro, alongside fellow councillors Carole Cockburn and Martin Lear, will host a public meeting for residents of The Bourne on Monday (January 16) at 8pm in St Martins Hall.
Parents of pupils at St Andrew's School in Farnham 'town centre have also been moved to speak against South Farnham's proposals, and specifically the 'south of the A3l' rule.
Jacqui Matthews, chairman of the St Andrew's Parents' Committee, said: "The South Farnham admissions document draws a boundary along the A31 for junior school places, denying places to any children who literally live 'the wrong side of the tracks', no matter how close they are to the school"
Jacqui added the change is likely to "adversely affect" the balance of schooling options for children who live in central Farnham and warned it could lead to the demise of the well-loved 150-year-old St Andrew's infant school.
Pat Frost, county councillor for Farnham Central, which includes both St Andrew's and South Farnham schools, said: "This awful A31 dividing line will divide Farnham and St Andrew's School in half. Frankly I find that quite disgraceful and I will do everything I can to support parents in the town centre."
Mrs Frost and the St Andrew's Parents' Committee will hold a public meeting to discuss the changes and their consequences for town centre residents on Tuesday (January 17) at 7.30pm at St Andrew's School.
South Farnham School will also host a meeting for parents of pupils currently at its infants and junior sites, at 7pm tonight (Friday).
In a letter to parents, South Farnham headteacher Andrew Carter wrote: "Naturally there is much interest in admissions within the area and we are very conscious that anything that can add clarity can only help the process. To this end we would like to invite all [South Farnham] parents to a meeting ... when we can clarify the governors' aims and help indicate the way forward."
Speaking to the Herald in December, Mr Carter said the consultation process would last until the end of January, after which South Farnham's board of governors would consider "every comment, letter and email" in coming to their decision.
I attended the meeting at S Farnham School this evening, and heard the projected figures intended to calm local parents concerned their children will be squeezed out of their local school in the Bourne because of the sibling priority awarded to all of SF pupils.
We live centrally in the Bourne and the SF Bourne site is our nearest school. Our child did not get in because of the effect of the so called 'Bulge Year' and their siblings. As an eldest child, he had no magic sibling priority.
By admitting 30 extra pupils that year, over half of the reception spaces in 2011 were taken by siblings, a huge rise on other years.
As much as I want to, I'm afraid I just don't believe the figures given by Mr Carter and the school governors this evening.
The 'Bulge Year' is a working example of what happens when only 30 extra pupils had sibling rights - what will happen when the whole of SF, in their hundreds, are given sibling priority?
The fact is, WE NEED MORE SCHOOL SPACES AT THE BOURNE FULL STOP. I disagree with Cllr Lear - he will be aware of the dire situation regarding school spaces in the area. Demand at the Bourne site is huge. No, increasing the intake would not solve the whole problem, but at least it is a step in the right direction. Parents WANT their children to go to the Bourne, the waiting list is bursting. Why are you not supporting local residents in trying to expand their excellent local school?
It is apparent that Mr C wants to expand the Bourne. He just wants Surrey CC to help pay for it. But can the site take an additional 90 kids going forward if the additional class is permanent which it probably will be?
Of course Mr Carter wants to expand the Bourne Infants site. Extra pupils mean extra money; the funding an academy receives is based on head count.
Simple as.
Thanks EW for your question. I am very aware of the problem that we have allocating places to all of the children with aspirations to attend the Bourne. Equally I am an advocate towards greater provision of excellent education in the area and indeed would support a move to achieve this end, but it must be done properly and at present the buildings at the BI site are simply not big enough. Planning has been approved recently to address the immediate issues and the hall would need to be enlarged also to satisfactorily cater for the increase in PAN to year R. This is something that personally I would support for the aforesaid reasons on this blog and elsewhere, however this is not the issue that has caused so much consternation within the Community of the Bourne.
At the meeting last night Mr Carter stated that the amount of siblings would be minimal, and whilst the audience seemed unsure about the figures ,if Mr Carter is correct then there should not be a problem. However the majority of views that I have heard from within the Community are very simple, in that there is absolutely no protection for very local children living in the Bourne without siblings, should Mr Carter be wrong?
As Mr Carter stated last night there can be no guarantees with this issue due to the vagaries of birthrates, changes to families employment location etc etc, so we have a moving target yearly which is nigh on impossible to hit, as we have seen previously at the BI site.
Suffice to say that there are many in the Bourne who are worried about this and hopefully they will attend the meeting on Monday night where they will be able to explain to Mr Carter personally their fears. Maybe he will allay those fears or maybe not, albeit it will be an opportunity for all present to put forward any ideas that they may have. Nothing is set in stone and indeed a few ideas were raised last night which were previously forwarded to the SF Governors which may have merit in being explored, and these arenas are the ideal place to make such representations.
In short I hope that Mr Carter is correct in his forecast and for future reference I am in favour of increased provision at the BI site as it is an excellent school which must not be forgotten and the community needs more quality school places. It is for this very reason that we are in these discussions as everyone wants their children to attend the school! The very success of this school has ensured that it is 'hoist by it's own petard!'
It was good to have the meeting at the school last night and hopefully progress can be made calming the nerves of many from the Bourne on Monday night ?
I personally would wish to see some protection within the admissions policy for very local children to the BI gate(without siblings), should indeed Mr Carters figures not work for a host of potential reasons in due course. This way we will avoid the situation we encountered in Sep 2011, however if he is correct and wishes to pursue the proposal in its current form then only time will tell.
The SF Governors have autonomy as an Academy to set their own admissions policy and as your local Councillor I am always happy to liaise with Mr Carter on your behalf to air any views that you may have, so please contact me personally should you wish to do so.
We are all entitled to our opinions so please come and air your views on Monday as you will all be very welcome.
Kindest regards
Martin Lear
So, the Bourne is finally realising that in pushing for the merger they have in fact invited a cuckoo into the nest.
Who's sorry now ?
Thank you for your reply Cllr Lear.
I hope that this time around local councillors can be effective in being heard by SCC and LEA and achieve the results that local residents and parents want for their children. It certainly did not happen for the displaced children of 2011.
As you may recall, Farnham Parents raised a petition of (to memory) over one thousand signatures asking to have an extra class put in at the Bourne School. That, added to the size of waiting lists, is quite some public demand.
Perhaps this is time you/we may actually achieve results, other than the resignation of Peter Martin, who misguidedly approved the expansion of Pilgrims Way. It was an arrogant waste of tax payers money, expanding Pilgrims Way at this time - as I understand it, parental uptake of the spaces at Pilgrims Way was woefully low and for good reason. Just think how much more beneficial that money might have been directed at the Bourne site, the centre of demand for school places. But then, why would the LEA involve parental preferences or statistics in strategic planning? Particularly when they had a failing school they could inject with a forced intake of displaced local children.
People should be made more widely aware that THE BOURNE HAS CAPACITY TO TAKE AN EXTRA CLASS INDEFINITELY. All that is needed are modifications to the Hall etc..., indeed should anyone wish to ask about this, I am sure Mr Carter will be happy to help. He is waiting for the LEA to request the extra class, but surprise surprise, the LEA have seemed a little reticent about approaching Mr Carter. Why not give him funding to help out the local children? He might represent an Academy, but when local children are being badly displaced and disadvantaged - why hold him back from helping?
Can you tell us why?
It would be wonderful if you could secure some protection for local children, but other than increasing the intake (which may also benefit siblings too, sadly) it certainly didn't sound like such protection would be offered, no matter how many protests were made.
Again - the statistics of the Bulge year remain clear. Intake increased by only 30, over 50% of reception admissions within a couple of years were siblings.
The facts speak for themselves, no matter what 'research' the Governors have undertaken. Not projections. Fact.
If Mr Carter wants to expand the Bourne Infants site, then as an academy he needs to ask Mr Gove for the money directly - not look to the LEA. FACT
... and to take the extra class on for the Bulge Year, are the council not paying for that?
The most cost effective way of solving this problem is to expand The Bourne, allowing the community to gain access to their local school, Mr Carter to provide education to families, and for the council to spend their money wisely.
To expand the Bourne Infants site would be to risk killing the goose that has laid the golden egg. The site has thrived as a compact, community centred infant school rather than as some large insitution.
No to Bourne Site expansion
The Bourne is no longer a small infant school, and with the change in admissions local families much closer than 525m will loose out,
So by not increasing the PAN it will be less "community centred".
Increase the PAN!
Yes, Gaye Barre (?!), I thought the same, but in conversations I have been told that because the supply of school places for children in the area is the responsibility of the LEA, Mr CArter has to be approached by them. Michael Gove is not really aware/ involved in handling the supply/demand of spaces, and as this is to do with 'helping out' the local area, I think that is why some funding for modifications is needed?
I agree, I also thought that the money for modifications should be coming direct from Michael Gove - perhaps a question for the meeting tonight.
Or perhaps if the LEA finally get over their personality problems with Mr Carter, they can ask for help in solving the undersupply of spaces in the Bourne - and help him do it, rather than seeing him as a cantankerous enemy. The LEA have not acted on behalf of parental demand for some years. Apathy of parents is their friend - the LEA are not exactly a proactive body. Mr Carter has said that he cannot be seen to expand the school by himself, as he will pull children out and away from other decent local schools. Personally I disagree with him - I think he needs to be braver and be seen to do exactly that. It is not empire building , it is giving as many children as possible a good education. All good local schools have waiting lists - the demand is there if spaces are freed up.
I live in South Farnham and have two children that currently attend South Farnham School I'd quite like my third child to attend the South Farnham Infants School as well.
I totally support Mr. Carter when he says all children should be treated equally and understand the frustrations from the Bourne parents but I really do not understand why their children should take priority over mine as we are all under the same umbrella now as a school and I would hope that the fairest way forward is to allow all siblings entry into the South Farnham Infants as a whole regardless.
PS It's interesting how everyone still refers to it as The Bourne clearly change is an issue here - unless I am mistaken it is now South Farnham Infants and therefore South Farnham Infants should really get a chance to attend their school.
I attended the meeting at South Farnham School and quite frankly the rudeness from some of the parents was childish it was like watching toddlers throwing tantrums.
Yes good plan. I personally think though that Mr. Carter should be able to pick who he wants in the school and get rid of the nasties ;p)
I was not aware that any parent - certainly not those at the meeting - had particular beef with parents of siblings getting priority.
The problem is that there are just too many of them, and they block out a lot of spaces for new children who in some cases live a lot closer. Isn't the answer to increase the intake? This may simply allow in more siblings, but it will hopefully also help first-timers at the Bourne site. All good local schools have waiting lists - this is a clear sign that intakes need to increase where possible, and SFInfants Bourne site has capacity.
And by the way - I think the Bourne residents might feel a little like they are linked to the school, it being situated in the middle of their village, whether it has merged or not. Just a thought.
The meeting was not quite as bad as painted here - people want the best for their children. Isn't it a bit selfish to have an 'I'm alright Jack' attitude - can't we be a bit more community minded on all accounts. That includes north, if it is the nearest or only school.This is about ensuring children have the best education possible, whether at the Bourne site or the other good schools an expansion would free up.
Waiting lists examples: St Peters 24; St Mary's 18; SF Infants 60, to name a few. Demand is there PUSH FOR AN EXTRA CLASS WHERE PARENTS WANT IT.
No I clearly heard a Bourne Mum suggest that children who had been through the Bourne site should have sibling rights over and above that of any other child that I don't agree with and thankfully nor does Mr. Carter. I think no matter what he does or tries to do there are always people who aren't going to be happy.
The moans rattle in but there is one thing we all have in common that is that the school is a good one and perhaps instead of attacking him at these meetings people just understand that he isn't magical and can't please everyone.
I continue to have every faith in what he does which is why I would love all my children to attend his school. However if that ends up not being the case I wouldn't stand there and ask him to treat my child as an exception over anyone elses, I don't work like that it's just a shame some people do.
Now that Mr Carter has publicly declared that there is capacity at the school to increase the intake permanently, don't the local councillors and LEA have a moral duty to help him? Forget his school being an academy, there is one common denominator - the Bourne (like others in the area) is an excellent school, and school spaces are woefully short for local children.
If he can help, let him. The demand for spaces is clear.
Look at the size of waiting lists in the area - and simple stats dictate that it is not the same children on every list (I say that from experience too - as I am aware, you can only be on three waiting lists at a time).
MORE SCHOOL SPACES AT GOOD SCHOOLS!!!
Head faces inquisition over, school admissions
By Daniel Gee
FARNHAM parents grasped the opportunity to quiz the headteacher of South Farnham School about controversial changes to his school’s admissions policy this week.
Andrew Carter, head at South Farnham, attended public meetings in The Bourne and Farnham town centre to discuss the proposals - even driving too and from Nottingham to attend the latter.
In The Bourne meeting, at St Martin’s Hail on Monday, he answered questions on the so-called ‘Bourne siblings issue’. While on Tuesday, in a meeting at St Andrew’s Infants School, the debate focussed on a ‘south of the A31 rule’.
Many speculative figures were exchanged at both meetings as people tried to work out how many children would miss out on places at South Farnham as a result of the proposals.
But in the end, the discussion inevitably came down to a matter of principle and the fact that, as South Farnham - one of the top performing schools in the country - is oversubscribed, some children would inevitably miss out on places.
David Munro, county councillor for Farnham South, forecasted as many as 25 children are in "grave danger of being elbowed out" of The Bourne infants school by siblings in September 2013.
However, Mr Carter disputed the figure was more like "four or five" - and added the "real issue" was how many more Bonrne children will get into The Bourne infants school under the siblings rule next year. The headteacher added the school is "trying desperately" to get as many Bourne children into The Bourne school as possible.
In a lively question-and-answer session, one parent questioned the "morality" of constructing an admissions policy based on helping families already with children at the school rather than the community of The Bourne itself.
In response, Mr Carter asked "at what stage is a child considered local ?", and explained that while The Bourne school is the nearest infants school to Waverley Abbey House two miles away, it is not the nearest for families living in Aveley Lane little more than 500m from the infant school’s gates. Mr Carter added many pupils at infant schools in Frensham, Tilford and Churt live in The Bourne and that the proposals would give their brothers and sisters a better chance to attend The Bourne infants school.
"The challenge is, for every child you let in, you exclude another" he said.
"Between 100 to 150 children are excluded from South Farnham juniors every year through failed applications and another 50 from The Bourne school. We need to find a way that is fair for everyone."
But many questioned how fair it was for South Farnham to suddenly change its admissions policy when people had been planning their children’s education since their birth.
A father, whose three year old will be directly affected by the proposals, said: "We chose to live here on the basis of good schools, and to go through three years our daughter’s life and then come to a cliff face is hard to stomach."
Mr Carter acknowledged that the South Farnham board of governors need to look into "softening the blow" for people caught in the middle of the changes.
The headteacher also responded to a proposal by the South Farnham Residents’ Association, looking to safeguard The Bourne infants school for children living in the village. Mr Carter stressed his belief this is not the "right way forward", adding such a policy - similar to that enforced on the school by the local authority last year - would penalise local families for "a long time to come".
[cont ...]
[... cont]
The other school directly affected by South Farnham’s proposals, St Andrew’s School, held a meeting on Tuesday, chaired by county councillor for Farnham Central Pat Frost, and again attended by Mr Carter and concerned parents.
Opening the meeting, chairman of the St Andrew’s board of governors, Chris Hyland, explained how South Farnham’s proposal to exclude families living north of the A31 from South Farnham junior school would affect St Andrew’s.
He said: "These proposals would mean 21 children currently at St Andrew’s, who would have expected to have gone to South Farnham in 2013 and 2014, will have no school to go to."
Jacqui Matthews, chairman of the St Andrew’s Parents’ Committee, whose son Sammy will be affected, summarised her objections on three grounds: fairness, locality and choice.
Jacqui explained when she, and many other parents living in the town centre, applied to St Andrew’s, they were "reassured" they would have two feeder options - Potters Gate and South Farnham. But since that time, Potters Gate has limited its year three intake and South Farnham has amalgamated with another infants school, The Bourne.
"The rules have changed half way through the game," she added. "All town centre families with children at St Andrew’s live less than one mile from South Farnham and are part of the community serving the junior school.
"The Government also believes parental choice is an important part of schools’ admissions. But, whereas most parents living south of the A3l have two choices - South Farnham or Waverley Abbey - those living north of the bypass have no choice whatsoever."
Mr Carter explained South Farnham’s reason for using the A31 as a dividing line, insisting his school is merely following an example set by the local authority, Surrey County Council.
He also recognised South Farnham’s proposals would limit the options for town centre families, but added "options change" and said it was up to the local authority to find junior school places for children in the town centre.
Mr Carter said: "Seventy five per cent of St Andrew’s children will be unaffected by these changes. Is it unfair on the 25 per cent? Yes, but we have to turn people away every year and cannot please everybody.
"The purpose of this consultation is to listen, and although our governors will not consider any changes until after January 27, they will certainly look into phasing in the changes for children currently at St Andrew’s after that date. That way, St Andrew’s and the local authority would have until 2015 to find a solution. I think that’s more than fair."
He added: "It is our principle that wherever possible we will not take a new child in at the expense of a sibling. We believe that brings a sense of fairness, and certainty for those living south of the bypass. We can try to be fair to everybody, but that doesn’t mean we can give them all what they want."
[cont ...]
[... cont ]
However, the overriding question from parents at the St Andrew’s meeting was why draw a dividing line just 400m north of South Farnham junior school, excluding children from its nearest infant school?
"This is your community" said one parent. "The key word in South Farnham is Farnham - not Churt, Tilford or Frensham. It makes me very sad to think 10 St Andrew’s children each year won’t have the opportunity to travel half a mile to their closest junior school."
Bringing the meeting to a close, Mr Carter said South Farnham has "no intention" of changing its admissions policy again after September 2013, but added that extensive development in the town "would affect things" in years to come.
To contribute to the consultation over proposed changes to South Farnham School’s admissions policy for September 2013. visit the website www.south-farnham.surry.sch.uk or write to Chair of Governors, South Farnham School, Menin Way, Farnham, Surrey, GU9 8DY before January 27.
News Update: The Public meeting held by our three local Councillors on Monday 16th January saw a packed St Martin's Hall .
Andrew Carter defended his sibling policy and answered many questions from worried Bourne parents many of whom think his new admission's policy is unfair. Mr Carter acknowledged that the South Farnham board of governors need to look into 'softening the blow' for people caught in the middle of the changes.
What became very apparent on hearing the statistics is that there are not going to be enough places for the increasing number of eligible school children and there is no simple solution.
I've had just about as much as I can take of all this nonsense.
It's about time that a petition was started for Surrey to take every action it can to prevent these appalling changes to South Farnham Primary's admissions.
E-petitions for Surrey can be started at http://petitions.surreycc.gov.uk/
Post a Comment