Two public meetings - one last night on the Bourne siblings issue and the other tonight about St Andrews. Each a success I think in that the subjects were forcefully, eloquently but respectfully aired and both sides given a good chance to make their case. And the turn-out (more than 150 combined) demonstrated the passion that people felt. The SF team can't be in any doubt about the feeling in the community - not just parents incidentally, there were a number of 'ordinary' residents there too. So, more light than heat (not always the case at meetings of this sort).
More to the point, what was the outcome? We will see definitely when SF publish their firm proposals after the consultation closes but I got the feeling that the school is prepared to move a bit. But how much? That I don't know. Keep going with the responses.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
My impression is that there would not be much change offered by SF as far as Bourne local children etc were concerned (possibility of increased PAN aside). Maybe I am just pesimistic or maybe I missed something as I had to leave a little early!
My impression is also that there would not be much change offered by SF.
The meetings just seemed to descend into talking shops to me.
They achieved precisely nothing.
At the Bourne meeting, Mr Carter said his survey results would be published on the SF website. I've had a look and can't find them. Does anyone know if this has been done yet? If so, please could you post a link on this blog. Many thanks
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/
If only the folk who warned us about the merger had been heeded, we wouldn't be in this admissions mess.
We were told that the emperor wasn't wearing any clothes - and sure enough, he has turned out to be as naked as the day that he was born !
Post a Comment