I've always allowed anonymous comments on this blog as I believe that this facility has contributed to a better flow of information on all the important topics that have been raised.
But I'm afraid that too many of the comments verge on, or exceed, the limits of acceptability and I have decided not to allow anonymous comments any more, and to take down those comments that are not signed.
So please feel free to say what you think needs saying but make sure you put your details in. I haven't been able to alter the blog settings to stop anonymous comments automatically, but I'll be removing them as soon as I see them.
Very regrettable I'm afraid but things have gone a little OTT. I repeat: please comment as you wish but you now need to identify yourself.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
39 comments:
Dear Mr Munro,
Unfortunately, it is still possible to post to this blog with a made up Name/URL identity - anything can be entered in these fields, as this posting demonstrates.
Anonymous posting can be disabled by restricting who can comment to "Only Registered Users" - see How do I enable comments on my blog? .
There were some excellent points that have now been lost.This does not help the cause especially so close to the meeting when people are getting up to speed. Can the valid/acceptable ones be returned for all to view? If not can posters repost? I do not see why putting your name on posts is a problem.
I see that South Farnham school now has a meeting arranged for their parents on Friday. Anyone who has a child at SF and is attending the meeting willing to report back to us poor outsiders? It feels like we are being left in the dark again even though we have a meeting on Monday we do not know if a SF representative will attend.
I am just finalising my response letter to send to the SF Head & Governors but some of my key observations are as follows:
1. From the outset, both Mr Carter and his staff should be congratulated on the performance of the school – fantastic to have a school of this calibre ‘locally’.
2. I was happy for the merger to take place last year as some assurance was given that the admissions policy would not be changed in the short term – so why now?
3. The video presentations given by Mr Carter contained on the ‘Schools World.tv’website during the change to Academy status process are really worth a watch. Mr Carter very proficiently talks about, amongst many other things, the school reflecting the community, adapting to local needs, being socially right for the neighbourhood. He also spoke with reference to the Bourne School to be merged with, about retaining its uniqueness and branding and allaying concerns about the school no longer being the school they are now i.e. loss of branding. All of this gave me a reassuring feeling until now.
4. My analysis of the figures shows that no local children without siblings will get into the BIS in 2013. I stand to be challenged on this but when you look at the intake of 31 from the siblings group in 2011 from a total of 180 (17%) attending the BIS this translates to 123 when you consider the additional 544 from the South Farnham school as a whole with the same 17% ratio applied. Only 60 places so not sure how this is going to work. This may be wrong but whatever way you look at it local Bourne children with no siblings are just not going to get into the BIS in my view. SF need to look at the numbers and if having done this they are happy to exclude local children, well I’m not sure what to think about that.
5. Why is a change to the policy required? – no reasoning given so hard to understand motives behind the change.
6. Where will the local children go? One thing is for sure they will not get the standard of education they were looking forward to if they attend BIS and then SF.
7. Loads more traffic as non locals bring in children to BIS and local children get taken somewhere else – School Lane and Lodge Hill Road will get worse with queuing back down the hill towards the Fox pub at drop off time a real possibility. Let us hope the emergency services do not have to get down there.
8. Impact on the community. Demographics of the Bourne will change as couples looking to start families will think twice about paying a premium to live in the Bourne. I realise that people do not choose to live in the Bourne for purely for educational purposes as there are so many other great reasons BUT it is a major contributory factor. Potential impact less couples bring up families in the Bourne. This has many other knock on impacts socially and economically not to mention the impact on property prices. Walking to school, parents and children mixing with each other socially before and after school will go as the ‘drop off and go’ mentality kicks in.
So there it is, I offer it up for good healthy and constructive discussion, hopefully I will not be lambasted too much!
An interesting quote from the Chair of South Farnham Governors on South Farnham becoming an academy "I think it will be a good thing, as long as once you are in the goal posts are not moved again"
http://schoolsworld.tv/videos/south-farnham-the-next-chapter
(3mins 23 seconds)
Pity this doesn't seem apply to the Admissions criteria post merger.
Thanks to Ms Onymous who has pointed out - rightly - that people can disguise their names anyway, and how about restricting comments to registered users or similar. But that would make it just that little more inconvenient for people to leave legitimate comments so I think I'll leave it as it is, at least for now, and see how we go. Might have to think again if there are too many aliases creeping in. BTW, I'm afraid a pseudonym 'Worried Farnham Resident' or whatever counts as anonymous too - sorry!
All anonymous comments have been permanently deleted.
With regard to the meeting for parents at South Farnham on Friday - I'm sure Mr Carter would be delighted to welcome one or two members from the local community to hear what is being said. Just call the school - 01252 716155 or talk to him about it at the end of the school day, he is often found chatting to parents at the school gate.
The school letter regarding a meeting on Friday is posted in the public domain and states - 'To this end we would like to invite all parents to a meeting this week on Friday at 7pm in Menin Way.'
It does not say which parents, so, as I am A parent and this letter is, as I said, 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.
If South Farnham wants nothing to do with children from north of the by-pass, then why are they naming a feeder school there ?
Might it be because there is insufficent infant capacity in schools south of the by-pass ? And if so, is it not then at best duplicitous to bar local children from north of by-pass where these is insufficient junior capacity ?
Both sides south and north of the by-pass have benefited from an effective "free-trade" in school places to date, with the north's excess infant capacity being traded for junior capacity in the south, in a more-or-less steady state.
But South Farnham's newly proposed admission criteria threaten to introduce "protectionism", which can only harm what until now has been a mutually beneficial arrangement.
I too have written a letter (along the lines of Ian Welch's) to Mr Carter and the Board. I would encourage anyone who hasn't already done so to do the same (to show that we are a significant number) and preferably before tomorrow's meeting so that our concerns are fresh in their minds. info@south-farnham.surrey.sch.uk seems to be well monitored (Mr Carter has acknowledged my email) so it might be an idea to send it to that email address as well as by post - which might not get there in time for tomorrow.
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.
The Bourne has brought this on itself agreeing to the merger. Unable, or unwilling, to see past the carrot of guaranteed places at South Farnham Juniors which was dangled in front of them, they did not contenance these inevitable consequences.
But it's no good crying over spilt milk, or indeed shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.
Marry in haste - repent at leisure ...
I prefer to be more optimistic than the last post. I can't believe that the School Board and Mr Carter who have all done so much for our Town and who have had successful careers based on doing what is best for children can really have intentionally decided that local children won't be able to go to their local school. What is in it for them? It doesn't make sense.
Iam Welch said:
5. Why is a change to the policy required? – no reasoning given so hard to understand motives behind the change.
I contacted SF before Xmas at length about this matter and subsequently received a telephone call from Mr Carter [not the Chair, Mrs Ross, interestingly]. It was a rather one-sided conversation and said much about Mr Carter's character and his approach to communication and consultation.
In both my email and our conversation I asked 'why?'.
More specifically I asked for the governors to issue a detailed reasoning for the alterations to the policy given that for a number of reasons changes were not legally required. [The admissions policy has to be reviewed annually but not changed.]
Unsurprisingly, and despite a repeated request, no reasoning has been given.
So far it is a 'like it or lump it' consultation.
So what has brought on the need to change something which itself had changed at the time of the amalgamation? I do not know.
As yet I can see no reason to change the status quo. At the time of the amalgamation in the summer of 2011, SF said: "The current admission arrangements will remain in place for the time being."
Personally, I am not directly affected by the change of policy, but I do find the lack of transparency as to purpose irritating.
Carter must know the parents at BIS and SF [and beyond] are not fools. So why not explain and give reasons and rely on sense and intelligence to be allowed to be applied.
Frankly, in my opinion it is difficult to know how to respond to the proposals the subject of the consultation in a pragmatic and sensible way if there is no explanation for 'why?'
The meeting this evening at SF school is supposed to answer the question 'Why'....it specifically says that the Governors will explain their reasoning, so it will be very interesting to see if that really happens.
I hope it is well attended.
The admissions criteria was extensively looked at during the merger consultation. All the concerns currently raised were raised and acknowledged at the time. This is all in the public domain in the SCC consultation document, in the report considered at the Cabinet Member for Children and Learning meeting on 16 February 2011 and indeed featured in the decision report....all published. It is very well documented the reasons WHY the sibling rule was altered for the school crossing two sites and where the junior part is more than double the size of the infants part.
This was less than one year ago.
It will be very interesting therefore WHY SF Governors (lets be honest, Mr Carter) feels the need to change what was an accepted condition of the merger and why he does not feel the concerns raised then and now are important. I suspect its just because he can, but I hope I am wrong.
I don't know if you were able to attend tonight's meeting at SF but I felt it was largely pointless.
At least in part Carter allowed it to be hijacked by issues irrelevant to the issue supposedly at hand, namely the proposed admission policy at the Bourne site, such as 'the bulge year', the St. Andrews conundrum, 'abuse' of the admission policy by parents renting in the 'catchment' area for just long enough to qualify and then moving on out of area.
There was almost no clear explanation of the reason for the change [save some self-aggrandising puffery about being the heart of the community and acting only in its interests] and much jiggery-pockery with statistics and rubbishing [possibly correctly in parts] of the extrapolations made by the Bourne Residents' Association paper.
On to Monday.
I hope the convenors of the meeting can stop the irrelevant and focus on the admissions policy. So hopefully it can major on 'The Bourne Proposal'. Maybe I can use it as a basis for a new treatment in the Jason Bourne film franchise!
I attended the meeting this evening. I agree there was no real reason offered for the change in admissions. Lots of rhetoric about families and playing a part in the community, possibly in response to comments now deleted on this site.
So much for governors being a 'critical friend'...it seems they have to tow the line / are indoctrinated in the SF (or AC) way. I doubt that they can even remember what the true role of a governing body is all about.
Saying all of that I hate the way things are done BUT if the statistics presented were correct then perhaps the issue is not so great. Unfortunately we have all experienced 'SF slant' on things and even tonight there were blatenent untruths said: The current admissions criteria rushed, there was no consultation....what total rubbish! The existing admissions criteria was stipulated as a condition of the merger and directly came out of the consultation process following OVERWHELMING concerns regarding protecting the community nature of the school. Its a hideous injustice to say it was stuck on the end of the process to get the merger through.
The reports are public for all to see: going into great detail as to the public response and the validation of their concerns. This is of course at odds with what SF survey says......it would be helpful therefore if things were truly transparent -if we could see the responses (How many people REALLY responded??) then this would really diffuse the issue.
Is this really all about getting SCC to pay for an additional class at the Bourne? Can't help thinking that the pieces fit, timing is right and AC rides in and saves the day again....I hope so... Leadership is great, dictatorship not so ...
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.
Mr Munro,
Mr Carter stated last night that he was meeting the Bourne Residents Association to show them the results of the SF school survey.
I would ask that the results are thoroughly looked at because the conclusions being drawn are critical. I think the number of responses quoted was 79%. We need to know how many responses and how many families in the school....we are talking 230 children at the Bourne and 544 children at SF....thats an awful lot of responses in just a couple of days......Did they REALLY get this number??
Surely this survey only gives a picture of the impact of the children currently at the school. The first intake affected will be 2013 and so the siblings of the 76 children going into year 3 (not coming from the Bourne) this September have NOT been included in these numbers (and these are children aged 7 so a good proportion WILL have siblings). So based on Mr Carters numbers in 2013, 13 places will go to siblings from the Junior school who would not get into the Infants under the current arrangements. This takes the sibling count up to around 33, plus the unknown number of siblings from the 76 children not accounted for in Mr Carters analysis. The Bourne only has 60 places.....
This is the crux of the Community's concerns.....Mr Carter can dress it up how he likes but the reality is that this will have a significant impact on the number of places available to local first born children.
Correction 210 at the Bourne
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 ?
The quality of education is not and never has been under question, the problem is that the school is almost too successful and almost everyone wants to go there ! Maybe excepting those that do not wish to put their names to posts?
From another thread;
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
Slightly confused by this, Mr Turner:
'At least in part Carter allowed it to be hijacked by issues irrelevant to the issue supposedly at hand, namely the proposed admission policy at the Bourne site, such as 'the bulge year', the St. Andrews conundrum, 'abuse' of the admission policy by parents renting in the 'catchment' area for just long enough to qualify and then moving on out of area...
......I hope the convenors of the meeting can stop the irrelevant and focus on the admissions policy.'
I agree the meeting did not satisfactorily answer the 'why', but surely no-one can call the issues you listed as 'irrelevant'. The SF proposals are to do with admissions and how they will affect the local community. Isn't the effect of the local community important?
The Bulge Year is a working example of what happens in a popular local school when admission is increased by 30. A significant rise in places awarded to siblings - over 50% of spaces. In previous years the sibling stats were approx 10-16 siblings out of 60 admissions. Two years after the Bulge Year, at least 31 of the 60 spaces were taken by siblings, now with more on the waiting list.
Very relevant.
Perhaps the LEA should be handing out birth control at the meetings?
What are you on about ????!!!!!?!
The number of siblings being admitted has always varied 13 - 22 (pre 2010). However, there is no doubt the impact of the Bulge Year was immediate. Historical data, from SCC, shows this: 22 in 2007, 13 in 2008, 16 in 2009, 23 in 2010 and 31 in 2011. SF siblings will simply make every year after 2012 even worse. The catchment in 2012 was 500m (approx.), what with families renting close by and then moving, this will surely shrink the catchment again. The PAN at the Bourne must be increased, it’s the only option. This would leave 50-60 places available for those living around The Bourne.
So Mr Munro, will SCC help in this matter?
Re: Mrs T Rouble / 14 January 2012 22:18
"Mr Carter would no doubt have introduced his own version of admissions even if the merger had not gone ahead - quite possibly, but without the merger he would only have been able to change admissions criteria for the Menin Way site, not for Bourne Infants. And in reality he needed to take the Bourne Infants with him when converting to academy status, in order to get a "critical mass" for funding.
With the meeting in the Bourne scheduled for tomorrow I thought it would be of interest to post some feedback from the Friday meeting at SFS received from a reliable source. This information requires confirmation from SFS representatives at the meeting on Monday but the according to the survey now carried out by SFS of all parents at SFS (80% response) the following figures have been produced. For the 2013 admission 11 siblings would be eligible under the 'sibling' rule, 7 of which are from the BIS. This leaves 4 from the rest of the SFS (544 children). Hence there would be potentially 49 places available for 'nearest to BIS' children. If these figures are correct then there is appears to be no problem. Unfortunately these figures do not compare well with previous years where 20 or so siblings come from BIS alone before now having to consider the siblings from the rest of the SFS. I emphasise that this is information that has been passed on. Personally I think we need to know more about details about the survey and it’s results as much rides on this information and this should not be an issue for Mr Carter if we carrying out a fair and open consultation process. What questions were asked, how many replies were received and how reliable is the information collected. I find it hard to believe that there are only 4 siblings eligble for entry into the BIS in 2013 from the SFS Menin Way site. We should wait and see if the above figures are correct from SFS representatives at Monday’s meeting. But regardless of this the information has been made available prior to the meeting for people to consider which I thought was important and was the reason for this post.
The post above - Mr A Other is incorrect.
The figures quoted by South Farnham were an additional 11 children in 2012 and an additional 12 in 2013. These are children who get in to the Bourne on the sibling rule who would not get in under the current arrangements i.e they have siblings in the junior school currently in Yrs 3 or 4 (and 5 for 2012 entry). This is in addition to typically 20 children who get in as siblings from children already at the Bourne. So that leaves 32 spaces taken up by siblings of the broader school in 2013.
Additionally, these figures are the 'best case scenario'. They are based on the children currently at the school.
However, this Sept, a FURTHER 76 children will enter SF from schools other than the Bourne and in Sept 2013 ANOTHER 76 children will do the same. The siblings of ALL these additional 152 children will also have priority for reception places in 2013 at the Bourne. They have NOT been counted in Mr Carters survey.
What would be a good guess for the number of these siblings??.....well if its typical of SFs own survey then there would be about 12.... Again using SFs own numbers then the available spaces for new children in the Bourne in Reception in 2013 will be 60 - 20 (typical siblings from the Bourne site) - 12 (the additonal places out of the survey) - 12 (siblings of the children in the village schools who will take up a SF place in Yr 3 in the next two years).....= 16 places.
In 2011 there were 29 places for first born children and that equated to 525m from the school gates.
16 places.....well unless you live on School lane I doubt you will get in.
And don't for one second think that any parent having the opportunity of a place in the Bourne (and thereby guaranteeing a place at SF) would not take it up in preference to the village schools, despite them being of a very high standard.
Can we keep up collective pressure to increase the intake from 60 to 90 at the SF Bourne site. It will not solve the problem, but it will help. The capacity (with minor modifications that Mr Carter would like the LEA to pay for) is there for a permanent increase.
Waiting lists as of today, as an example:
St Peters 24 waiting
St Mary's 18 waiting
SF Infants 60 waiting
There is an over all shortage of space everywhere.
Mr Carter will help if approached. Are the local councillors and LEA going to do some good for the parents and children this year? Please make them respond to parental demand - the demand is at the SF Bourne site and the capacity is confirmed as being there.
It will also free up the other schools too, which are also of excellent standard.
Listen to parents and local waiting lists. It is NOT acceptable to be shipping 4yr old local children out over 40mins away to get to school. It is not acceptable to force people to 'go private' if there are no acceptable local spaces.
MORE SCHOOL SPACES AT GOOD SCHOOLS.
There is capacity at the Bourne. The head is willing. Help him! It is time the LEA began to respond properly to the statistics. We need parent power and our councillors to step up for us.
The playground is pretty good compared to many other infant schools. The site can take another 3 classrooms and the hall will need to be expanded. The traffic I agree will be a problem. It's not the best site for such a large school but I don't think it will stop it happening. If Surrey needs the capacity I expect planning will push it through !
I don't disagree but that takes time. I have 2 children at the Bourne and take no pleasure in seeing the site expand. However I'm not aware of huge capacity elsewhere to expand. I don't think though that the Bourne should expand unless there are excess children who cannot be catered for by existing schools, and that includes Pilgrims Way. It is a waste of public money to not sue existing capacity.
Frank Le Speekin - I agree with you absolutely, but I don't know if you have had any dealings with the LEA and their schools strategy/ admissions team.
I think many parents are crying out for a new secondary or a new infants/ juniors. Councillors have even pointed out to them that with further residential development in the area, the schools will be under more strain. They continue to maintain that there is no space/money for new schools.
The fact is that they are happy to ship children away from their immediate communities up to 40 mins away (at least) to fill those under-performing schools elsewhere in the Surrey area. Or hope they lose them to the private system, out of parents desperation.
Parent power is needed to make them listen.
To the person mentioning the traffic problem at the Bourne site - let nearest local children into the school and they can WALK! We live in the Bourne and have to drive our child out through that area every day to get to his not local school. If he could have gotten in to the Bourne site, we would be gladly walking.
More space needed.
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