Are you affected by the Maidenhead secondary schools' boundary change?

History

Discussion Board

Useful Info Appeals etc

Last Updated

Saturday, May 01, 2010

This website has been set up for parents of Year 6 children living in Cookham who are not happy with the proposed school offered to their child or for those who have not been offered a school place. This will also affect any parents who have younger children in years to come.

STOP PRESS

Friday 30 April 2010 - Update From Julia Cox

Apologies for the delay on this update. I’ve been holding back in anticipation of full responses on all issues but, alas, they have not all been forthcoming.

Here’s what I have to feed back:

Firstly, thanks to all those who showed up to support me at the General Council Meeting on Tuesday 20^th April. I’m sure we would have had more representation had some of you not been stranded overseas owing to the Icelandic volcano!

This was my initial question to Cllr Quick: “I would like to ask Councillor Eileen Quick if she will guarantee that there won’t be more pupils per timetabled subject class in 2010 and beyond than there has been in previous years at Furze Platt.”

Cllr Quick’s response was, essentially, that determination of class sizes is the responsibility of the head teacher. It goes without saying that I, and all who support them, have confidence in Mrs White, Sue Le Page and the Board of Governors at Furze Platt, that they will do all in their power to ensure our children have the best possible result in terms of delivery of effective education in September 2010 and beyond.

My second permitted question was about when we can expect closure on the issues surrounding revenue and capital funding. Cllr Quick’s response was that discussions with Furze were ongoing and an external specialist consultant had been hired to support this. Cllr Quick also stated that an announcement on revenue funding would hopefully be made within a week or so but an announcement on capital funding could take up to a month.

To date, I am not aware of any announcements on either of the above, but a press release has been issued by the Borough about a market research survey conducted by external consultants on a door-to-door basis, on future requirements for schools provision. My initial reaction, as someone who works in research-based PR, and having experienced first-hand the impact of the Borough’s capability on surveys (as those of you who attended the public meeting at Moor Hall will know), is one of scepticism, but I also feel the scope of the initiative should be treated separately from our aims as a Cookham Cluster Action Group.

As you may recall, I also undertook to enquire of the 3 main political parties details of their manifesto on Building Schools for the Future.

This was my question:

“I represent a group of some 200 or so parents and interested parties in the Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead, some of whose children were either denied their first choice of secondary school or not allocated a place at all for entry in September 2010. An action group was formed, and a public meeting held, chaired by myself. To cut a long story short, the result is that the Lead Member for Childrens Services and her team have added an additional 40 places to the local secondary school to accommodate these displaced children.

Part of the council’s press communications around this fiasco have focussed on the Building Schools for the Future programme. However, there seems to be doubt amongst some people that this programme will continue to exist in future years.

With the looming election, please confirm how the XXX Party, if elected, will continue the funding and delivery of the Building Schools for the Future programme.”

and provide below their specific responses, allowing you to draw your own conclusion:

LABOUR

“Thank you for your email of 15 April about building schools for the future.

Partnerships for Schools (PfS) are now responsible for the delivery of the government’s schools capital investment programme. I have therefore forwarded your email to PfS and asked them to respond to you directly. You should expect to receive a full response to your enquiry within 15 working days.

Please note PfS contact details are:

Partnerships for Schools

33 Greycoat Street
London
SW1P 2QF

Email: PfS.Correspondence@partnershipsforschools.org.uk

Website: http://www.partnershipsforschools.org.uk/

If you have any further enquiries relating to this matter please address them to PfS directly.”

I am still awaiting their response.

CONSERVATIVE

“I am writing on behalf of Michael Gove to thank you for your email concerning secondary school places and Building Schools for the Future.

First, let me assure you that a Conservative Government would review the current Admissions Code to make it more transparent. We have heard from so many parents who do not get their first choice place, or even second, third or fourth. We believe all parents deserve the right to have a place at a good school of their choice for their child.

We entirely understand your concerns over Building Schools for the Future. We would honour any existing contracts to rebuild or refurbish a school. But even Labour has been forced to admit that the school capital budget will be cut. We have to be careful about future commitments.

We know that expansion of schools or even building new schools is a sensitive issue for a community. If there is demand present, then we would certainly try to support such an expansion.

I hope this clarifies and assures you that we want to empower parents to be able to have their choice of school – parental choice is the backbone of Conservative education policy.

Thank you for taking the time to write.

Yours sincerely,

Anna Grotberg

Anna C. Grotberg

Office of Michael Gove,

Shadow Spokesman for Education.”

LIBERAL DEMOCRAT

“Unlike the Conservatives, we have no plans to cut the BSF budget. Cutting the school building programme would be incredibly unfair on all those children in schools in need of building work.”

I hope this update has been informative and helpful. The bulk of my work as your Chair is now done. I welcome any party/person to contact me on specific issues and will keep you informed of significant developments as I hear of them.

All good wishes for our future together as parents within our Community.

Friday 16 April 2010 The main Council Meeting is on Tuesday 20^th April and the Council Cabinet Meeting on Thursday 22^nd April 2010. Julia Cox has a question for Councillor Quick seeking a guarantee that class sizes at Furze Platt for Year 7 in September 2010 and beyond will not be greater than in previous years which has been successfully tabled. Julia will be attending in person to ask the question. Julia has also e-mailed Ed Balls and his Shadow counterparts requesting clarification on their education manifesto and, specifically, Building Schools for the Future.

The schools admissions issues continue to receive coverage in this week’s Advertiser in the letters pages. Julia was on page 13 of the previous week’s paper, directly before the “Held to Account” interview with Councillor Quick.

Thursday 25 March 2010 - RBWM Cabinet voted on the proposals that Cllr Quick presented at the Moor Hall meeting of 16^th March. Results as follows.

1. Given that the 40 additional places at Furze Platt Senior School for September 2010 have already been offered this was not debated and was taken as a ‘done deal’, although Ms White (head at FPSS) and Sue le Page (FPSS Governor) put forward a strong pitch for significant funding to support the additional places.

2. The main issue of interest to parents of children who go to Cookham schools both now and in the future was the new Priority Link (feeder school) tiebreaker as explained in the extract (2.3.2 below) from the proposal document – this was unanimously approved.

3. The increase from 3 to 4 school preferences (2.3.3 below) as suggested by Cllr Quick was also approved which is also good for us

4. The only proposal that was presented on 16/03/10 that has yet to be resolved is the additional 40 places in FPSS for September 2011, Cllr Quick and others feel that there may not be a need for these places and therefore they are doing further research prior to committing themselves. Given that Cookham schools will have priority link status (as above) it is unlikely that these additional places would be needed for Cookham pupils to be offered an FPSS place.

On Tuesday March 23rd the Children's Services Overview & Scrutiny Panel was held at the Town Hall. Several people from the Cookham Group attended this very long meeting. They left just after 10.00 and the panel still had many more items to discuss. James Evans was a good Chairman. Altwood Head Kathleen Higgins spoke at length about the disquiet of secondary Heads who felt that greater consultation and communication between the schools and the council was needed, so that similar situations do not happen again. Both Tanya White and Sue le Page said Furze Platt was in principal happy to take the extra children, but were very concerned about where funding, which is essential, is going to come from. Penny Bysshe spoke on behalf of the head of Bisham Primary Jim Cooke who wants the children at his school to be given priority for places at Furze Platt along with those at the Cookham schools. Cllr Michael-John Saunders spoke well for the Cookham group.