Sunday, February 28, 2010

Governors Disappoint Cheam Park Farm 105

Governors of Cheam Park Farm Junior School voted to keep the lower admission number at a specially convened meeting on Thursday thus denying 15 local children a place at the school in September.

The comments section of my previous article shows the passion and anger of parents about this decision. I've been fortunate that my two children have had the school places that they wanted throughout the various stages but I well remember the worry at each stage. I can understand the frustration of the disappointed parents and the concern as to what will happen next.

I am an advocate of headteachers and governors having more individual control of their schools. Local Authorities, Government and OFSTED place a huge bureaucratic burden on schools with directives and new policies coming in at an unbelievable rate. However, this doesn't mean a free-for-all. Schools need to understand their communities and serve them, not divide them as has happened hear. The school has confirmed its desire to work with the infant school to bring them closer together over the next couple of years but that will be scant comfort for those who will have to look further afield for a place for their children.

Diana, Sue and Juliet have led a fantastic campaign, bringing so many people together. Having seen their grit and determination, I suspect the battle isn't yet over.

40 comments:

cheam park farm 105 campaigners said...

You have ripped our community apart and caused more heartache and anger than you could have possibly imagined. We have carried out our campaign with the utmost dignity, we have not said or quoted anything that is not true. You on the other hand have behaved in an abominable manner. For instance your chair of governors lied to yr 2 parents at the january meeting for which she has never apologised, her husband then sought an apology from us for merely naming her as the chair of governors. If governors cannot adhere to basic morals such as telling the truth you are in no position to dictate what is right or wrong for your school.

We will challenge the ruling, we will challenge the sibling rule, we will challenge the adjudicators report and we will challenge you, the governors of cheam park farm juniors. The only good that has come from this mess so far is that you have shown every parent how uncaring and lacking in morals and common sense the people in charge of the school are. Our campaign has grown with every worried parent and our support is phenominal. You have tarnished the reputation of an otherwise good school. Parents do not wish to send their children to your school but they do not have many other options. The bad relationships between school and parents will become more apparent with every passing year that more of the infants join and we do not believe you will ever be able to repair the damage you have caused.

cheam park farm 105 campaigners said...

after publishing the comment, we just realised it doesnt read too well on one matter. Where we have posted " we will challenge the sibling rule " we would just like to clear up which part of the sibling rule we will challenge. Our campaign has always been about the whole 105 transferring and we DO NOT want the sibling rule taken out. We will challenge the fact that the sibling rule was not in place when we joined the school so those without siblings are now at an unfair advantage which they were not, 3 years ago upon joining the infants. The fair thing to do which we will challenge, would be to take ALL the children so those who joined the school pre the sibling rule had an equal chance of gaining a place based on the distances they lived from cheam park farm juniors.

Lisa B said...

You go girls!!!! we are behind you every step of the way. Win or lose you are "legends" If the world was full of more caring people like you, it would be a much better place to raise our children.

DT said...

Excellent post from the campaigners. If the chair of Governors and others who made this stupid decision thought that this would now go away they are very wrong.

Lucy said...

I am not a parent from cheam park farm juniors but this case interests me, as i am a parent and my children attend cheam common school. I found recently while digging deep into the history of this case, an interesting letter on sutton councils site. An exert from this letter reads "The governing body remains willing to be flexible on standard numbers such as 93,96 or 99. I may be wrong but i have seen no mention of the junior school trying to reach a compromise with these parents and campaigners. I realise only taking 99 of the children would still leave 6 without a place, but finding 6 junior school places must be easier to find than 15,considering how full the schools are. It could possibly, also guarantee that the children who do in fact, live on the estate were guaranteed a place and those who come from elsewhere but like the school would apply for places closer to where they live. Like i said i'm not a parent at the school and if i ever had any thoughts of moving, it would not be to that area as i would not want to be in the position these poor parents are in at the present time. Just a thought, but maybe the campaigners could try to secure 99 places by meeting with the governors and reaching a compromise with them?

Anonymous said...

I would be interested to see the minutes of the meeting the Governors held. I would hope the meeting was a genuine discussion where all the proposals were openly and honestly discussed. However my gut feel was the meeting was used to compose a letter to the parents to convey the rationale behind a decision the Governors had no intention of ever changing. My gut also tells me that although there are 11 Governors, one is calling the shots and desperately trying to save face. However, every cloud has a silver lining and one Governor had the courage to stand up and be counted. It may only be one Governor but it's a start. To that Governor I say thanks for trying and your support will be needed as the 105 campaign will not just give up. Finally, remember what happened to the "Iron Lady" when she got too big for her boots.....
As for the three ladies who have driven this from the start, don't give up! You have amassed a huge amount of support and should take a step back and be amazed at what you have already achieved. Think how you will feel when ALL 105 kids get the right to an automatic transfer... and with you three on the case I am sure they will!!!!

Anonymous said...

The strength of feeling on this is clear. Even parents not affected are commenting. (Thanks Lucy) Comments on this Blog about this issue continue to be loaded and are far greater in number than on other Blogs on the site. Sorry Paul, that was not intended to be a slur on other issues you have raised! I just wanted to point out that people want to raise their concerns here (as it would appear the Governors do not want to hear them.). Paul thank you for posting this here and campaigners don't give up, there are always ups and downs along the way.

JT said...

I wonder how the staff feel about the image of the school they work for being so badly tarnished. Their teaching methods are not in question here and the Ofsted report shows that. It's a pity that like any company, or public service the "back office guys" hold all the cards and damage the "front office" and "face" of the organisation concerned.

Anonymous said...

Couldnt agree more J.T! The ofsted report shows the teaching staff are doing an excellent job, even with their class sizes that have previously included all of the infant school children.

L C G said...

What else can I say, the posts above just show the amount of support that you all have, and will continue to have, whatever the outcome. You have behaved with the utmost dignity in the face of opposition and should be so proud. The campaign has won the support of parents,Other local schools,the Admission forum, Chief execs of Sutton Council and has got two politicians of opposing parties to work together. You have to question the motives of the Governors if they do not take on board the views of such a diverse population. There is often criticism that local people do not get involved in local issues, I think you can put that to rest.

MG said...

Does the desire to work with the Infants mean the Governors of the Junior school will impart their wisdom and suggest the infants reduce their numbers to 90? No doubt if this happens the Juniors school will then reinstate the automatic transfer and job done! Instantly the bad guys become the infants school and the junior school achieve what they have always wanted and leave the infants to pick up the pieces. I hope the Governors of the Infant school will not be hoodwinked by such a blatantly obvious move. The Juniors should be working to reinstate the automatic transfer and that should be their top priority.

DT said...

Continuing along the same lines as where i believe MG is heading i believe the mischevious dealings and intentions of the Governors of the juniors school are now becoming apparent. Basically blame the Infants for something they,the governors of the Juniors have started. It is apparent that the Juniors governors have desired a PAN of 90 for some years. If this had been done in a clear and transparent way the problems, anger and distress caused so far could have been avoided.The governors should be made to attend a public meeting at the school to explain themselves rather than hiding behind an A4 sheet of paper put in six and seven year olds book bags on Friday.
Well done to the Campaigners,you have been superb, the politicians and councillors (you know who you are) who have assisted this campaign so well in the interests of the children and parents.

Juliet said...

Wow, thank you so much for all those wonderful comments. This campaign has been such a huge part of our lifes for the last 4 months, we have put way too much into it to give up that easily. For those of you who are interested here's a link to our facebook group , we would love to have you as members.

Anonymous said...

May I point out that the published admission number for both schools was originally 90 and the Infant Sch increased to 105 in the late 1990s. So the original problem arose from the Infant School. Sorry but please ensure you do your homework before posting comments otherwise this campaign will loose all credibility!

Anonymous said...

Regarding the above comment, the juniors have been taking the infants for over 10 years if that is the case, so why stop? Not really sure what point you are trying to make, or are you just trying to pass the buck to the infant school? I don't really see what difference that makes, the junior school is the one refusing to take the children, there is no justification to reduce the infant numbers as they are heavily over-subscribed every year and there is a huge shortage of school places in Sutton, so losing another 15 places isn't going to help with that problem. I'm not sure what you mean by losing credibility - what are you referring to?

Anonymous said...

It doesnt matter when it started. The history of it doesnt matter either. Whether someones facts are slightly jaded through rumour or differ because of other peoples accounts do not make any difference either. This campaign has credibility because these 3 or is it 4 ladies care about what happens to these children. They are neither politicians or council officials, they are parents who have been betrayed by a school that has decided after they placed their children in a school to change the rules and leave them to pick up the pieces. Right or wrong, misguided or otherwise these ladies are fighting for their children. For gods sake stop having a go at them, put yourselves in their shoes and sit back and think what you would do if you were them today.

Cheam Park Farm 105 Campaigners said...

To Anon above, thank you so much for your comments, you are right, we are 3 mums who when we started this 4 months ago had no idea we would get as far as we have today. It is very humbling reading everyones comments, well the nice ones, we couldn't of got where we have without the support of the parents, so a big thank you to all our supporters, knowing we have it helps us continue.

B.H said...

I would like to point out to people that the campaigners of the 105 are doing the work of the councillors and school governors in actually doing something about this ticking time bomb that is a lack of forward thinking on behalf of these people. This stretches back long before the adjudicators report to the Census of 2001, when these problems would have been clearly highlighted for all to see. They can hide behind the birth rate explosion as much as they like, but the census data would have given them a clear steer on that anyway. I
I feel the school and governors have an ostrich mentality as far as fact and fiction are concerned and I cannot understand why a contingency plan was not put in place for when this venture failed as everyone, but them seemed to be aware of the backlash this would cause. These children and their parents are victims and all this current blaming everyone else for what they have done is not acceptable. It is still not too late for them to change their minds and come to their senses. They could use your campaign to do the right thing, save face, and who knows, even become local heroes in the process.
I would like to question why I, a junior school parent have not been consulted until now as this could potentially affect my child and I call on other junior school parents to join your campaign. I have heard some say they don’t like large classes, but they already have them, so what difference does it make to us and our children anyway. These children will not affect us, why should they? They are younger than our children in the juniors; they will not be in the same classes. The juniors have always taken them all. What are our children going to gain from having 15 less children? Less of a queue in the loo? Less of a queue at lunch time? These parents have pledged not to support the school financially or otherwise, who can blame them? They have been ignored, mislead and completely misinformed. This is both a social and local issue that needs a far greater audience than these inept governors who clearly haven’t a clue about how any one actually feels.
This is not about 15 children not being given a school place, as disgusting as that is; it’s about local school places for local children. If it means increased council tax to school these children then I would agree in a heartbeat. I would rather my money was spent on a worthy cause such as giving these children an education than on some of the deadbeat ideas I have had to pay for over the last 30 years. I will soon have the unenviable task of applying for high school places and according to friends, be afraid, be very afraid as this will affect us all. Maybe then and only then we will be able to fully understand what these parents and children are going through at the moment but with children not long out of nappies. If these campaigners have had the guts to stand up and speak for these children, then good luck and best wishes to them. I can see what flack they have taken from others on these forums just for standing up for their offspring.
The majority of people who are against their campaign are parents who want what they feel is best for their own children i.e. smaller classes and no huts. But if these campaigners believe that the best thing for their children is to attend the juniors with their friends, how do they differ from others, they are in fact just the same, lionesses protecting their cubs surely. Lastly, a word of warning to you ladies. The school has now begun to try and lobby the parents here at the juniors to reinforce their view. While many will side with them, many more will not because as I mentioned previously there is no incentive for us if your children are excluded from this school, our classes are already large (although no larger than anyone else’s) We already queue at lunch time and for the loo’s so your children will not transform this school or have a detrimental effect on it but the reputation it is currently obtaining just might.

Anonymous said...

I totally agree, although one point i feel needs raising. It is infant school parents that should have been consulted on smaller class sizes, not junior school parents. I do not wish to offend anyone but all the junior children will be left and happily at high school before the schools vision of smaller classes becomes apparent. As above says it does not affect them whatsoever. Therefore the infants parents should have been the ones that were given the ultimatum, smaller class sizes and exclude 15 of your children each year, or keep the classes the same as they have always been and include all your children.

Anonymous said...

To anon above, As an Infant school parent who is in this situation, I know which one I would pick!Larger class sizes have not affected any Ofsted results and I want my Childs education, friendships to continue uninterupted. I have watched as the Campaigners have been left in the dark and have had to fight for every meeting. The School Governors should be consulting US and they seem to be using sneaky tactics to try and get what they want. I hope that the current parents of the Junior School realise this.

Anonymous said...

All very well to have a "vision of smaller class sizes" but its of absolutely no use to parents in the local area if they cant get their kids into the school is it! I have a vision of living in a lovely quaint little village with class sizes of 20 children, but it doesnt mean i am ever going to achieve it does it. Our world is too over populated for my vision to ever become a reality.

lucy said...

There is talk in our school playground today about whether we will have to take the extra chidren and increase our class sizes to help out, which they are mostly not happy about. All very scarey for you, and my heart goes out to you with all the uncertainty this has brought you. A friend was saying today, you cant even go on any waiting lists at other schools until May. Its all so silly.

Anonymous said...

This link make interesting reading and would again demonstrate that this decision is being driven by the Governors alone!

http://sutton.moderngov.co.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=1401


I am at a loss to understand how 10 of the 11 Governors can blatantly ignore the wishes of the majority of parents as well as Sutton council.

Just exactly who are they representing?

Anonymous said...

The parents and pupils at the Junior School!
The local authority 'blatantly ignored' the issue for 3 years!

Anonymous said...

As you are a parent of a child already in the junior school I fail to see how accepting 15 children affects you, your class sizes will stay the same! and the mobile classroom offered is of a high standard with funding. as for "Blatantly Ignoring" the issue, 3 years ago the school went behind the councils backs and called the Adjudicators in when the council did not want to drop the PAN!
Put yourselves in the shoes us parents of the children at cpfi, the Governors changed the Admission rules for us after we joined the infants school and that was not fair, it has always taken the children from the infants and it should continue to do so.
I genuinely hope when your child moves to senior school you do not find yourself in this uneviable position.

Anonymous said...

In respect of the comment regarding the local authority blatantly ignoring the issue, see below extract from the Sutton Chief Executives committee meeting on the 9th February:-

The Strategic Director – Children, Young People & Learning Services explained the background to the decision to reduce Cheam Park Farm Junior’s PAN from 105 to 90 and break the link with the Infants School. This decision had been taken by the Adjudicator at the request of the school, despite opposition from the council. The issue of whether the school could go back to a PAN of 105 had been discussed at the Admissions Forum. The Strategic Director was clear that this would be possible for the September 2010 and 2011 admissions and beyond. He explained how it could be achieved and how the LEA would help the school to do this. As a result of that discussion, the Junior School’s Chair of Governors had agreed to call a special governor’s meeting to consider the issue.



Executive Members stated their support for the campaign and agreed to formally request the school to consider, in the first instance, taking all the children currently in Year 2 of the Infantss School and then consider increasing its PAN to 105 for September 2011 onwards.


I believe there is a paragraph stating , "despite opposition from the council"

Again it would appear this decision is and always has been driven by the Governors.

The bottom line is, birth rates have increased and pressure on school places has never been greater. It's not rocket science, now is not the time to reduce school places.

Anonymous said...

How about a local school for local children. Judging by the amount of vehicles abandoned every day at both schools on the yellow lines and zigzags perhaps this is not the case. If you live on the estate then you should generally be able to walk to school and live close by. It would be interesting to know how many of the children attending either school live close to the school or are driven in from outside the area. If this issue was addresed then maybe there would be enough places for everybody and the kids would not run the gauntlet of vehicle mayhem everyday by parents who dont live near the school or are too lazy to walk

Anonymous said...

Couldnt agree more! I sometimes spend 5 minutes in the rain trying to get my child safely across the road. I live a 5-7 min walk from the school yet i am not guaranteed a place in it. It is so frustrating how all these children are attending from outside the estate and they are doing it because they either have a sibling or have been less than honest on entrance forms or have since moved. There are a few i know who get one child in by renting in the area knowing the other two will follow on and then moved to a cheaper house elsewhere. Aghhhhh!

Anonymous said...

Without my comment being misinterpreted that i am against the sibling rule which i am most definately not,i would like to add that parents with only one child or even one of the wrong age range are the losers in this schools criterias fiasco. Some people for whatever reason choose to only have one child or they leave larger gaps between. This could be for financial reasons or like me after suffering numerous miscarriages in my quest for a second child, decided i could not face any more heartache so i gave up trying. Because of this we are to be penalised by a school even though we are living in the next road and risk our only child failing to transfer to a school with their much needed friends. This is a case of predjudice if ever i have seen one. I would NOT have placed my beloved only son in this school had i been better informed.

Anonymous said...

I couldn't agree more with the last two comments. If everyone attended their local school we all wouldn't be in this mess! If there really was such a shortfall in local places surely the local authority would of given approval for expansion in the local area?
Surely local children will get in?
But I can understand that the wait and uncertainty must be terrible for all those concerned.

Anonymous said...

The infants take 105 children. These spaces were all taken. Just because people don't live on the Park Farm it does not mean it is not their local school.

Some parents drive because they have to go straight to work & with everyone wanting to have more than 24 hours in day, we will do anything to save time.

Anonymous said...

To anon who posted at 17.00, the local authority are expanding local schools, just not the cheam park farm school!!

Anonymous said...

Not local enough for our kids though and certainly not in time for them either.

Anonymous said...

Re: Comment at 11:52, not everyone lives on the estate, not everyone has a sibling & not everyone lied to get in !

sue said...

To anon above. Dont take what anon 11.52 says to heart, we are all aware that it is not just children from cheam park farm estate that go to the school. My daughters best friend has just left the school because she was lucky enough to be able to get a place elsewhere. she didnt apply to the school in the first place, she applied to schools closer to her home but the schools were full and she was put in cheam park farm. Many others i know got their places fair and square too. We should not be bickering amongst ourselves, we all want the best for the kids which is why we want an automatic transfer. Tempers are running high at the moment because of the recent developments. This person at 11.52 probably didnt mean any harm they are probably just venting their anger and everyone is in fear of their childs place at the school. We are mostly on the same side here so lets not fall out and lets agree not to generalise either because no one is aware of others personal circumstances. just like to add it would be much easier to answer people if they at least used a first initial, theres far too many anons on here.

bj said...

http://www.cpfjunior.com/news.asp Here's the link for those of you who have not seen the letter sent out by Jackie Saddington. It takes you to cpfj website, letter dated 26th Feb.

sue said...

Its the same letter year 2 parents got on friday. The last paragraph reads as follows:
The governors would like to reassure all parents that they are in favour of ‘local schools for local children’ (copied from our banner, no doubt)but the situation has to be right for everybody. They would like to see an end to the anomaly of numbers between the two schools and are keen to engage in dialogue with the Governors of Cheam Park Farm Infants School and the Local Authority to prevent issues arising in future years.

Hey dont worry about our kids then, you just get the infants to drop their numbers and BINGO !problem solved is what they are basically saying. never mind our kids and the "experiment" that went wrong, our kids are just collateral damage. If the infants drop their numbers, then you have 15 reception kids without a place. If the schools are full, why is anyone dropping numbers anyway? they are the only school lowering their numbers in the borough, what does that tell you.

Anonymous said...

I have just read about a school closing down in sutton, how terrible. When i was a child, in a crisis, everyone pulled together and somehow things got sorted. So sad that in this day and age, in a crisis, everyone just turns their backs and looks after no 1. 15 children on this site without a school, up to 50 on another without a school, i wonder how many it will be next week. How much proof does this school need to see that what they are doing is just not right. Is home schooling going to be the only option available in years to came if parents want to educate their children. Are we returning to years ago when only the rich attended school.

Anonymous said...

THE ADJUDICATOR HAS SIDED WITH THE PARENTS & THE INFANT SCHOOL AND UPPED THE PAN AT THE JUNIOR SCHOOL BACK TO 105 FOR THE NEXT 3 YEARS!!!! UNFORTUNATLY TOO LATE FOR THE 11 POOR CHILDREN THIS YEAR! BUT THIS IS ABSOLUTLEY BRILLIANT NEWS AND COMMON SENSE PREVAILS!!!

WELL DONE TO THE 3 LADIES WHO FOUGHT FOR THESE CHILDREN, BECAUSE WITHOUT THEM THIS RESULT WOULD HAVE NEVER HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED.

CPF 105 campaigners said...

Thank you!