Monday, February 08, 2010

Parent Pressure On Cheam Park Farm Junior School

I joined concerned parents and grandparents outside the Civic Offices in Sutton this morning who are protesting against changes to the admissions to Cheam Park Farm Junior School. Eliza Philippidis (pictured), one of our excellent Stonecot ward candidates for the local elections on May 6th showed her support as well holding one of the many signs designed by the children.

Philippa Stroud and the local MP have worked with parents on a cross-party basis seeking to get the school to reverse their decision to reduce their intake to 90 from 105. The junior school works closely with Cheam Park Farm Infant School but the reduction in numbers means that children now in the infant school are not guaranteed a place and with massive pressure on school places, they may need to travel some distance to get to school in the future.

I am glad to say that the pressure opened a small chink of hope. We went into the Schools Admission Forum which had this as a topic of discussion. The Forum is only an advisory body as the school, as a foundation school, is in charge of its own admissions.The Chair of Governors told the Forum that she was calling an extraordinary meeting of the governors to consider taking in all children from the infant school who wanted a place, at least for this year. Hopefully they will see sense and go back to the higher number permanently. Smaller class sizes are all very well but if your child can't get into that school, they are not much good to you.

128 comments:

Anonymous said...

Thank you for all your support this morning. We all really appreciate it!

Anonymous said...

While the Cheam Park 105 campaign is a great cause and I fully back the Governors in taking in the additional 15 children, I think it is DISGUSTING that a conservative council 'candidate' is using this as an opportunity to electioneer in the upcoming elections on May 6th. Ms Eliza Philippidis 'pictured' appears to have been 'imported' from Australia (http://www.jasonrealestate.com.au/index.cfm?pageCall=staff although she does look younger in the picture) and just appears now in this campaign that your local Liberal Democrat MP PAUL BURSTOW (who the London Evening Standard named as Londons Hardest Working member of Parliament) has been hard at work on with his LibDem Councillors in Stonecot since last year.

It also appears to be a FACT that while Ms Stroud manages to get her name into Mr. Scullys article, Mr Scully fails to name the man who put significant work and influence into this project for some time.

So much for working together for a good cause.

Mr Scully - if you insist on reporting the news on your 'blog' might I suggest that you use your 'journalistic skills' in a fair manner in the future and try not to take advantage of what was and is a good cause for electioneering purposes.

And further! Ms Eliza Philippidis who has a teenage child is so keen on supporing our youth that she opposes the fantastic new life centre in Stonecot which will have some terrific new facilities for our young people.

Cllr David Pickles said...

Good to see the knives are out! So much for Ms Stroud's "positive" electioneering.

brakestow said...

Ooh touched a nerve have we..
Burstow obviously getting worried.
How ironic.I hear he has agreed to a public debate on the 8th March at Sutton Grammar School a place he has tried throughout his political life to get closed down.
There is only one hypocrite in Sutton and his name is Burstow.

brakestow said...

Oh yes the fantastic new life centre.
If you went on Dragons den and said you wanted 8.5million pounds and didnt have a business plan you would be chucked down the stairs by Peter Jones et al.
Well this is what happened here.
Get the money and then build the business plan around it,
What a joke.
The taxpayers of Sutton are being saddled with a debt they can ill afford.
Oh yes last year we were told that 650k would be funded by sponsorship.In the budget papers just released that sponsorship is now taking place courtesy of the Sutton taxpayer.
Spend spend spend is all this Lib Dem administration knows.

Scully said...

Anonymous2

Sorry you didn't like the article but I suppose you can't win them all. It's a shame that we can't stick to the good news that we may have got a little movement on this issue. The governors have agreed nothing yet so we can't take too much for granted.

I was unsurprised that you found the Australian that you linked to looked different from Eliza because she is a different person entirely. Taking a random receptionist from an Australian Estate Agent who has a similar name and dark hair and trying to have a go at Eliza somewhat undoes your later statement to stick to facts. The website that you link to is a current company site. Eliza isn't exactly Benjamin Button in being able to change her age that quickly.

Philippa has worked with parents in doing a lot of the ground work to get to this point, effort recognised by Paul Burstow in a previous meeting. There has been a cross-party approach. It's a shame that you have broken ranks to throw a bit of mud when there is still work to be done. Parents don't want to hear us squabble. They just want to know that we are doing our best for them.

Juliet said...

I, as a parent and a co-founder of the 105 campaign feel I have to respond to anonymous2 as well. Philippa Stroud has been amazing working on this campaign for us. She has been to our houses for meetings on several occasions and has kept us fully up-to-date with her progress.
I am somewhat angered that this is being used as a political issue on here, Philippa has not once mentioned politics to us, she is helping us because we asked her to and she, like us does not agree with the junior schools opinion on the 105.
Paul and Philippa have agreed to work on this case together, for us and leaving politics out of it, it would be very nice if everyone else could do the same!

JasonJHunter said...

Hi all, I saw the link here on facebook, and what a great job everyone has done on this project. All credit to the mums who founded the campaign and gained the support of BOTH Phillippa Stroud and Paul Burstow.

Obviously Anonymous 2 is a Liberal Democrat supporter - as am I and while the point about no mention of Paul was correct - I agree with some of the other writers above; this is not the forum for electioneering.

Good luck in the ongoing campaign to all the Cheam Park Farm 105 campaigners and supporters.

Scully said...

Thanks for your sensible comments Juliet and Jason. Good to get back to the issue at hand.

Lorna said...

as a parent I have seen first hand how hard ALL parties have fought this campaign! Its about OUR kids not politics. all we want is auto transfer to junior school, and both Philippa and Paul are fighting with us. Negative comments from people such as Anon 2 dont help!

sue tunney said...

I too, am a co founder of the cheam park farm 105 campaign and it is sad that anonymous 2 has tried to stir up a political debate that on this occasion does not apply. Paul Burstow and Phillipa Stroud may be on opposing teams but you must also bear in mind that they are both parents too. We approached both paul and phillipa for help and they have put politics aside for our children and worked together.We do not appreciate others using our children for a chance to belittle either paul or phillipa or anyone else for that matter. This campaign is about 15 children gaining an education at their local school. Without Paul Burstow our local mp our campaign would not have had the strength that it has now and without Phillipa we would not be the 3 confident ladies that we have become today. Our childrens education is the issue here not whether the people helping us are liberal democrats or conservatives.

Cllr David Pickles said...

Perhaps somebody on here should question the fact that Philippa Stroud, whilst she appears to be a champion of Sutton's schools, actually sends her children to a private school in Hammersmith & Fulham. Therefore despite her apparent approval and "love" of schools here, they are not good enough for her. A little truth in politics would go a long way.

Tim Crowley said...

Precisely Dave
Thats why your criticism of Cameron over the Lisbon Treaty is disingenuous.
How can he have a referendum on something that has already been ratified.
He said if it wasnt ratified by the time of a Tory govt then he would have one.
After and it is impossible.Maybe there will be one on the larger issues of europe but to play fantasy politics like you are is just stupid.

Scully said...

David

You're missing the message of the commenters who matter most, the parents of the children who face an anxious few weeks worrying about their children's future. I don't know where Philippa's children go to school but frankly, it doesn't matter. She is one of over a hundred people trying to get a crazy decision reversed and sense brought back to a pair of popular schools. Since you wish to represent these same parents as a UKIP Member of Parliament, maybe you can share your constructive views on the Cheam Park Farm situation?

Anonymous said...

You all chose to ignore the message that we sent out that was basically not to use our children and their plight in your political sqaubbling then? Well done david you are so right, it doesnt matter where phillipa or pauls children go to school, what matters here is WHERE OUR CHILDREN ARE GOING TO GO TO SCHOOL!luckily for us on the cheam park farm 105 campaign both paul and phillipa DO care. no one is better placed than us at present to describe after meeting regularly with both parties to be able to describe to anyone out there the genuine concern and empathy etched on both paul and phillipas faces when they heard our story . I repeat stop squabbling and do something constructive for our children just as paul and phillipa are.

Anonymous said...

Regarding the comment above. I actually meant well done paul scully, not david.

Anonymous said...

So much for your positive campaigning eh David Pickles? Personal attacks, tut tut.

The usual cheap and nasty shots from a cheap and nasty miniature politician.

Philippa, unlike you, has the power to change things and is running a positive campaign. She is showing her ability with Cheam Park without the visceral partisan twaddle you come out with.

Mrs Stroud has earned my respect for that and my vote.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps Cllr Pickles should take a leaf out of Pauls and Philippa's book and instead of political point scoring get down to the actual business of politics.
If local government and politicians actually worked together, as Paul and Philippa have done, instead of just taking an opposing view because it is the other party, more people would have an active interest in politics and things would change. As an apathetic voter, this year I will be voting and the decision will be incredibly hard who to choose as both Paul and Philippa, have shown a real interest in helping to try and right a wrong, regardless of their political background. However I can say with real honesty that should the name Pickles be on a ballot form it would certainly not receive my cross!!!
Where were you Cllr Pickles when the parents of Cheam Park Farm were looking for support.
Mud slinging doesn't resolve things, action does!!

Cllr David Pickles said...

Anonymous above. Where was I? Had I been consulted (of course once again most people fall for the fallacy that only the Lib-Dems and tories count), then I would have backed the parents 100%. Why didn't they consult me? Perhaps they didn't want to. Their loss I'm afraid. AND AT LEAST I DON'T HIDE BEHIND THE "ANONYMOUS" TAG. CARE TO REVEAL YOUR NAME?

Anonymous said...

I'm just a Cheam Park Farm parent getting a bit fed up with the real "issue" being forgotten.
I always thought when you put things in capital letters it means you are shouting? Your charm offensive will not persuade me to vote for you I'm afraid. I won't be posting on here again as it is clear this has just become a forum for mud slinging. Take care!!

Anonymous said...

As a Former Park Farm Parent and local resident can I just remind those of you suffering memory loss... This 105 issue is an ongoing problem that has been bubbling away for 10 years. My daughter was in a class of 36 in the early 2000s, big classes are not benefical to your children. The Junior school fought hard for years to rid themselves of dreaded huts! Where were the politicians and councillors 3 years ago when an independant school adjudicator ruled that 90 was the best admission no. for the Junior Sch??? (Can I remind you that is a body professionally employed by the government to make key decisons about schools not a politician or a Cllr serving their own interests?!) Perhaps the Infants should take only 90?? Don't tell me all these parents didn't know that only 90 places were available, they did and they gambled with their kids educations. If everyone was local they wouldn't be worrying or driving to school every day and parking their cars across my drive!!! How's that for the enviroment Mr Burstow?

Scully said...

Anonymous 11:24

Thanks for your post. My understanding is that politicians were around campaigning against the decision 3 years ago. As a Carshalton councillor, it hadn't come onto my radar at the time. Smaller class sizes are obviously desirable but of benefit to those who can get into the school.

You are right, the adjudicator is a body employed by the government. Other bodies employed by the government are the Financial Services Authority who were employed to ensure that banks were regulated and the exam board AQA who set a large chunk of an A-level Biology paper on a subject that wasn't in the pupil's syllabus. You'll forgive me if I don't share your confidence in such Quangos.

Anonymous said...

An you Paul will forgive me when I have more trust and faith in the schools' adudicator and the Headteachers and teachers across the country when it comes to a childs education rather than the politicians and councillors!

Scully said...

That's fair enough. I'm an advocate of schools determining their own policies and admissions despite this being my second disagreement about admissions (Wallington Girls being the first).

Anonymous said...

High School admissions are a totally different ballgame, and I agree with you that our selective local high schools should serve their local community first. I'm sure that a the heart of the Cheam Park Farm Juniors thinking was local schools for local children, and surely if these parents are local they will be allocated a place?? I'm sure you will correct me if I'm wrong!! But as a Park Farm resident why if they are local do they drive everyday?? I know that over the years the Infants had to advertise to fill their places as the places were not being filled by local residents!! In my sons year pupils were travelling from Morden and Rosehill! The Infants Sch is not oversubscribed at the moment I believe, it would be helpful to know what percentage of both the Infants and Juniors pupils live on the Park Farm estate?!!

Anonymous said...

Can I just remind everyone who may read this....Cheam Park Farm Junior School's admission number was reduced to 90 THREE YEARS AGO!!! Where have you all been hiding?? This decision was not made overnight and without consultation!!!!!

L C G said...

It may have been reduced 3 years ago but we were not fully informed at the time!!! This will be the first year it would have been reduced to 90 the last 3 years the full 105 have been accepted (they also changed the admissions criteria in the last year). also I do agree small class sizes are an ideal. but this school has always achieved an outstanding OFSTED report (they have just had one) and large class sizes havent affected that!!! I can assure you that children on the cheam park farm estate have been told not expect a place.The other schools in Borough agree its wrong so does the Schools admissions forum AND the Council Executives are all supporting the parents in this case. As your child no longer goes there maybe you should ask one of the current parents of CPFJ or CPFI, we would rather have uninterupted education for our kids, That is in the best interests of the children, rather than sending them to a different school with lesser standards, on the other end of the borough,

Juliet said...

Why do people insist on being anonymous, whoever the first person is, yes you are right smaller class sizes are desirable, so why is it the school are currently still resisting when they have been offered a top specification mobile class room to move the music room and sen room into, thus making smaller class sizes. Currently if all year 2 children get in with 4 classes in year 3 there will be 25 in a class, now who can argue with that? The majority of parents may have been aware there was a difference in PAN's, but what none of us knew was the sibling rule for infant children was going to be re-introduced, so you are wrong in saying all local children will get in, they won't, the siblings will!!! So maybe you are the one who should be getting all the facts before writing on here. As for politicians only helping to further their causes, they may or may not be, but I have had an awful lot of dealings with them, and in my personal opinion they are helping us because it is the right thing to do, and they like the council think the junior school is in the wrong. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and thank you for sharing yours, obviously I do not agree with you, maybe next time you post you'll be brave enough to post your name as well!

Juliet said...

Forgot to say with regard to the adjudicator's report, what a complete joke that is! The information used was so out of date and totally irrelevant to today, so not really worth the paper it's written on. The infants will not reduced their numbers, thankfully they are still run by the LEA who will not allow the numbers to go down, as they are every year over subscribed for reception. You obviously have not been reading the local guardian, there is a massive shortage of school spaces in Sutton, it doesn't take a genius to work out if you cut numbers you will cause more of a problem!

sue tunney said...

Would just like to say that at least 10 families on the park farm estate HAVE been told they should look at alternative schools! ( which i might add have no free places) Parents did not take a "gamble" with their childs continued education, the junior school moved the goalposts 2 and a half years after their children had started at the school by introducing a sibling rule to a school that THE ADJUDICATOR in his great wisdom said in his report that the junior school should cut all ties with the infants! Heres an idea, why doesnt the junior school just apply a sibling rule to every other local infant school in the area too!

Anonymous said...

MY child was in a hut. My child was also in a large class.My child suffered no ill effects. My child is in his 2nd year at university. Maybe the teaching staff or even the child itself was to blame if they didnt do too well. I am also unaware of any children in that year that didnt do well either, because they are mostly all at uni together

MG said...

In answer to I'm all right Jack's post (Sorry, Anonymous post)Amazing how the view changes when it relates to High School! I wonder if "anon" has a child soon to make that transition! I do hope that "anon" doesn't find that their child cannot go to the High School of their choice because back in 2006/2007 parents of kids at that school thought it would be a good idea to cut the numbers for future children. If the real issue is anger at parents parking outside your house this is really not the forum to raise it. Most people on here want to discuss their concerns about an obvious wrong that so many people are working hard to put right!! And for the record I do live on the Park Farm estate and have done since I was born!!

Anonymous said...

For the record both my children did very well at both Cheam Park Farm schools and at Cheam High too, they too are both at Uni. I'm just curious to know if people are still coming out of area, and why the junior sch is still resisting if this is such a problem? People remain anonoymous because of the pressure that has been applied to sign petions in the playground, I'm aware of this because I do still chat with friends who have younger children at both schools!
And however you dress it up a hut is still a hut!!

sue said...

I find your comment about being made to sign petitions offensive. We have never forced anyone to sign a petition. An awful lot of people have approached us and the rest were quite eager to sign and even asked us questions on the subject. On the rare occasion someone hasnt wished to sign it has not been an issue. afterall everyone is entitled to an opinion.

Juliet said...

Anonymous - I have just googled definition of hut, this is what I found A crude or makeshift dwelling or shelter; a shack.
2. A temporary structure for sheltering troops.

So it seems once again, your comments don't seem to be based on facts, a high specification mobile class room is probably better than their current class rooms. It will only be used as a SEN and music room and not a permanent class room.

I also have to agree with Sue, I have NEVER forced or put pressure on anyone to sign any of our petitions. So it seems yet again, your information is not correct.

Anonymous said...

Hello, Id just like to mention something no one else has if i may. Our country is so overcrowded and our schools are full to the brim. When our schools were built they were not equipped to cope with the rising birth rate or the flood of children joining from overseas. Whether we agree or disagree with large class sizes we have to unfortunately put up with them in modern day britain untill someone in government decides to build more. A school therefore that decides to lower its intake because it can, because it is a foundation school, is not acting in the best interests of the children or the local area. This school will add to the problems that we are facing in the modern world today and cause trouble for other schools in the area too. someone has to house these children and it will be council controlled schools because they will be made to which will cause their class sizes to rocket. The staff, parents and children in these schools will have no choice, they will have to just put up with it and their numbers could be as high as 36 or 37 per class.This school is behaving in an extremely selfish manner and if these children can be accommodated they should be. If they have an offer from the council to take these children and still keep their class sizes low by having a mobile classroom which will be used as a music and sen room then i cannot see any reason not to accept other than stubbornness and a dislike of being told what to do because they now have a foundation school status.

Anonymous said...

|I think once you have your children in a class of 35 you may regret this campaign, i understand your position and the reason behind this campaign, however once your your child is in a large class you will see there is no support for children as the teachers do not have the time and there is no funding for additonal T.A's. just thought u might want another point of view.

sue said...

I dont believe we would regret the campaign because the alternative to being in a large class at present is either having no school place at all or a school place who knows where, which will cause upset to these children by separating them from all their friends at such a young age. If the school accepts the councils offer however the classes would not be large, they would in fact be the lucky ones in classes of 25.the campaign has always been about ensuring 15 children have a school place to attend in september and i dont believe we will ever regret that.

Anonymous said...

And why should these be the lucky ones in classes of 25? What about the rest of the school, are they not entitled to smaller classes too? Surely the year 6 children need more space? I really didn't want to offend anyone on here previously, I was just puttiong across a different viewpoint. I believe that the junior Sch is just trying to achieve the best learning enviroment for it's pupils, is that such a crime? Also why should the SEN pupils be forced out into a hut, surely that will make them feel different, I would not be happy with that for my child.

Juliet said...

No offense taken, everyone is entitiled to an opinion, and wouldn't this be a boring world if we all had the same one. As far as I am aware yr 6 has 90 pupils, so they do not have larger classes. The school if they take this offer from the council can split the years as they see fit, as I would like to point out, they have in past years. This is the first year the school have not taken all the infants. I do wonder how the people who are against the juniors taking all the infants would feel if it was their child who maybe put into a new school, leave all their friends and be taken away from everything they have know for the past 4 years. At the end of the day all we care about is these 7 year olds staying together, the junior school has always taken the majority of children from the infants, and they have just received an outstanding on their Ofsted report, so I'm guessing they are doing something right!

Anonymous said...

I Would not be happy if i had a child forced into a sen hut either but i would be equally unhappy if i were a parent of one of the 15 children that will be forced into a new school alone!These children will also be made to feel "different" There is a saying I think applies here and it is "if it isnt broke, Why fix it?" If all of the infants have always been accommodated, then why not continue!

sue said...

You didnt offend me either and another point of view is always helpful. I agree these children shouldnt be the "lucky ones" but why should they be the "unlucky ones either". The junior school wanted smaller class sizes so the council have offered them a way to accommodate the children and still keeep their class sizes small. It seems these children have become outcasts because no one wants them, whether it be in a large class or a small class. They are as entitled to a school place as anyone else's child. From a different point of view to yours my child would be using the SEN room and i wouldnt have a problem with them using a high specification mobile classroom for that purpose, because she already uses rainbow house in the infants at the present time which is separate from the main building. They use it because it is quiet so the children can concentrate away from the hustle and bustle of the school. Also situating a music room away from the main building would be beneficial because of the noise created by instruments and singing etc surely must disturb other pupils. Oh and did i mention that the school has 2 SEN rooms so those that were aginst using the larger mobile classroom could still use the other room. I live 215 metres away from the school and I, like many of the other parents on the park farm estate should not be fighting for a school place for my child.

Anonymous said...

I just want to say that if your children do have to move schools it will not ruin there life i changed schools at the end of what is now year 2 back when i was at school and i fitted in well and made great friends i am stil in touch with many people from both primary schools i went, i do understand and am not trying to make you change your minds just thought it might give you some reassurance, they are young and with your support they will cope if they have to.

sue said...

Im glad it worked out for you but everyone is different i suppose. I too changed schools and it did not work for me unfortunately. I went to a school miles away and missed my friends dearly. Although i made friends at my new school none of them lived close to me and i felt very isolated at times. My school work suffered and because i joined the school after everyone else they had already formed their friendships and bonds long before i arrived. I too still have great friends from both schools but i have always felt that my parents removing me from the first school was a mistake.

sue said...

Hope every one who wrote comments on this blog pro the juniors reducing their pan is happy now that the selfish, self centred ignorant, overpowered idiots have ruled against us. ARE THEY COMPLETELY STUPID! THERE ARE NO SCHOOL PLACES! DOES NO ONE LISTEN OR READ THE PAPERS, OR WATCH THE NEWS! HAS NO ONE UNDERSTOOD THAT CHILDREN START SCHOOL AT 5 IN A PRIMARY SCHOOL AND THEY LEAVE AT 11. NO ONE HAS THE ROOM TO SLOT THESE CHILDREN INTO A YEAR 3 PLACE COS THEY ARE ALL FULL!!!!!! hope no one minds their council tax going up now because these children will have to be home tutored because apparently according to the admissions department this is an option for them with no school place to attend. Cant believe a group of people are allowed to take a bad situation, make it worse then make it worse still, untill it couldnt possibly get any worse! Heaven forbid these people get into government, they would take the recession, make it worse and before we knew it, we would be a third world country! what happened to the government paper "every child Matters" is what id like to know? did the juniors forget to read it i wonder?

L C G said...

Just feel so disheartened now, but we will carry on & try our hardest and we need all the support we can get.

Anonymous said...

Yes you do need all the support you can get, but ranting, shouting and insulting people is not helpful is it? Perhaps you shouldn't read the papers or listen to politicians who want your vote, get your own facts not policial spin!
And you don't bully.... noooo!?

sue said...

just as you have the right to an opinion, so do i. Or would you prefer i just allowed my child and others to be treated this way and rolled over and played dead. What facts are you referring to because we are indeed very factual. And as another matter of fact we have plenty of support and thanks to the "very caring nice people at the junior school" making a really thoughtful contribution to the welfare of our children we now have an awful lot more. And Nooooooo i dont bully, i say what i think!

Anonymous said...

i personally DO NOT want my child to attend this school. i have unfortunately no choice as i am aware of the school places shortage and i need 2 places as i have a child in reception and another in yr 2. This school will get neither my support nor money and i will show it the same contempt as it has shown the children in the infants school. I find it quite pathetic that someone has felt the need to attack a worried parent of one of these children for venting their anger at a ridiculous unfair situation too.

sue said...

To the above Thankyou

Anonymous said...

I agree that the school will not receive any financial support from me.(Should my child get a place?!?!) No doubt like the infants they will want an annual (voluntary) contribution in the region of £20 per year. 15 places down at the outset will mean a reduction of £300 already (hope they thought about that!!) Then even if half of the remaining parents refused to pay it would cost them £900. If the whole year refused it would cost them £1800, altogether £2100 they would no longer receive. Why stop there, don't pay the (voluntary) contributions for school trips. Raffle tickets, the numerous requests for money and donations throughout the school year that they will undoubtedly make... I don't think so!! Hitting people in the pocket always makes them sit up and think! No doubt we would hear the sob stories from them about how it will only be the children who would lose out. Well this didn't seem to bother them when they made the stupid decision to reduce numbers. Every one involved in this campaign knows the Governors are wrong. This is about them saving face. I do not know how they sleep at night. As for ranting, shouting and insulting, trust me the way most people are feeling at the moment I am amazed that "Sue" was so restrained. I completely agree with her! GOVERNORS, HANG YOUR HEADS IN SHAME!!

Anonymous said...

To anon above, you are so right, I really hope they live to regret the decision they have made. Financially they have certainly made a BIG mistake. How can they expect parents whose children have been so upset by this to want to give back anything to the school, they will get nothing from me, once again, if my child gets a place. It scares me that these 10 (I know there are 11 but one of them on our side) governors have so much power over the school, it is outrageous there is no one they are answerable to, it is such a shame there is a shortage of school places, because if there wasn't then I am sure they would not have many children apply this year. They disgust me, and I am in complete agreement with everything Sue said. Such a shame they all seem to be under the spell of Jackie Saddington!! Well done to whichever governor had the balls to go against her, at least that one can sleep well.....

Anonymous said...

It does seem a shame that the reputation of a previously excellent school has been ruined by a very bizarre decision.It appears that your campaign has been very well organised, backed by the opposing political parties,other schools ,local paper and the council meetings along with worried parents, grandparents , carers etc. There are no school places in this borough and these kids will have nowhere to go. I do wonder what the governors are thinking?. It appears that they have good offers to get over this problem and yet defied all logic and universal supportfor the kids being admitted. I would ask for a public meeting at the school with ALL governors present. Let them explain themselves to you as parents. You could table a vote of no confidence in them at that meeting.

J.C said...

The letter sent to parents advising of the decision was an absolute disgrace! It showed no compassion to the parents and children whatsoever! It failed to mention the fact that it has ALWAYS accepted all the pupils in previous years and bleeted on about its playing field. While green space is nice, it cannot be ruled as more important than a childs education! It stated that the governors felt empathy towards children who are experiencing anxiety at the transition to junior school, it made no mention of children being distraught at having no school place to begin in september! In another paragraph it also says it is in favour of local schools for local children, this is laughable as it is excluding children from the very estate that it takes its name from. The funniest part though was when it mentions engaging with the governors of the infants. They would like, if you read between the lines, the infants to reduce their numbers which will cause havoc with reception places too as the infants is heavily oversubscribed every year and would just add to the problem of even less school places in the area. Whoever drafted this letter did not do a very good job of covering the real message with diplomatic jargon! I am outraged as another poster has said over the contempt this school has shown these children! Diana, Sue and juliet keep going, You have become a force to be reckoned with and i, for one take my hat off to you for the campaign you have run with such love and feeling.

Anonymous said...

This campaign has on the whole been run well but when you start to name call and post insults against the governors you will lose both support and the moral high ground, there are eleven people who voted on this issue as a Foundation School their votes are the only ones that count rightly or wrongly that is the system, with one already voting against it only needs 5 to change a tall order but it happens but will they be approachable or up for discussion and persuasion if the name calling continues i doubt it. This is an emotive subject but please think before venting your spleen on a public forum. I live on the estate and have a child at both schools.

Anonymous said...

I agree with what you say and this is such an emotive subject that when you give valid reasons and options as to why the automatic transfer should remain but they are completely ignored, it is difficult as the frustration sometimes boils over. Of course you are correct that insults do not achieve anything and if I have offended anyone that was clearly not my intention. But when you are constantly hitting your head against a brick wall I'm sure you will forgive my one outburst regarding the "iron lady". Once again no offense intended and back to the serious issue of righting an obvious wrong. Perhaps if I can take a step back and think about what I have done, maybe the Governors could?....

cheam park farm 105 campaigners said...

Fair comment from anon above but unfortunately the campaigners do not have any control over what other angry parents are writing on here. we do have the moral high ground and agree names should be kept out of it.

Anonymous said...

The above comment is the most sensible comment on here I have read so far! Until the minutes are available we could all be jumping to conclusions and by using threatening language we will not achieve anything and our campaign will loose all credibility. I am also very worried about our childrens' schools but I don't believe that the Governors acted with malice or without reason. Is funding really available, has written confirmation been recieved offering accomodation/funds for classes? And are there really no places available, when I rung the admissions dept I was advised that there were places availble in central Sutton, although I'm not taking up the place yet! Sorry just felt we all need to take a deep breath and take stock and see what other avenues that may open up.
CPFI parent.

sue said...

Funds were offered in a room full of council execs and parents at both the admissions forum and the executive meetings held in the civic offices at the beginning of the month. Ian Birnbaum attended the governors meeting personally and once again put forward the proposal from the council. None of the neighbouring schools have places available and the places mentioned by the admissions team, would probably be the limited few available in hackbridge, carshalton and wallington. We need to remember we are looking for 15 local school places each september not just a few now and again. We also need to bear in mind that the junior school intake is now open to everyone so it may be more than 15 places that are needed. With so much emphasis on walking to school and reducing co2 etc, our children i feel should have the right to walk to their local school. Not every parent drives,and for those that dont this means at school run time these children will have at least an hours journey to and from school and all their friends they may make will not be accessible to them for after school play to develop their social skills further.

Anonymous said...

Further to my earlier post (28/02/10 13.01) there seems to be an assumption that the meeting was a foregone conclusion one of the reasons given was because the letters were in the book bags at end of school Friday that’s one view however how about a school and governors realising that this is a very important issue and getting the information out there as soon as possible can you imagine what would have been posted over the weekend if they hadn’t got the information out to the parents. And no I am nothing more to the schools than the parent of pupils before the conspiracy theorists start

Anonymous said...

To the two anon above. You are both correct. I think that the Governors did realise with the strength of feeling it was important to get the letter out to all parents at the infants. I also think a lot of people are now taking stock and that deep breath, which is really good advice. Equally I hope you would understand that in view of the decision made, the frustration felt but many of the parents would be bound to spill over into forums such as this. School places are, and will always be an emotive issue. Now back to the job in hand on convincing 5 Governors, because that's all it will take!

Anonymous said...

Of course the governors realised the strength of feeling, how could they not. Yes the letters were drawn up and put in bookbags rather quickly and yes you may be right about trying to relay the information to parents quickly too. It is however a shame the meeting was carried out in such a cloak and dagger fashion. The 105 campaigners knew where and when it was taking place but stringent measures were in place to keep that information from them. It is a shame they kept the information on the decision from everyone including paul burstow, council officials and the 105 campaigners. It is also a shame that every supporter of the campaign was denied entry to the meeting to put forward a case for the children. Lastly it was a shame the governors were not willing to meet or compromise or even explain face to face why they failed these children. People will draw their own conclusions from these actions and who can blame them.

Anonymous said...

Sue i read with interest your comment and i quote "selfish, self centred ignorant, overpowered idiots have ruled against us. ARE THEY COMPLETELY STUPID! THERE ARE NO SCHOOL PLACES!" what about those people whose children should not be there in the first place, but have miss lead the school as to where they live but through their parents selfish self centred attitued they have got a place how would you feel if your child misses a place because someone's child is there through this, this is not just a problem at CPFI but at all schools with a good reputation.

sue said...

To anon above, I completely agree with you! we have raised this issue and asked for tighter controls on proving where you live. The juniors were in January, not even going to ask for proof of address or even whether you were actually the parent to the child whose place you were applying for. They were simply going to transfer over the names and adresses from the infants school like they do with a straight transfer.When we joined the infants school 3 years ago, the younger sibling rule to the infants did not apply so we were given an equal opportunity to join the school because of the distances that we lived.The juniors however decided to reintroduce the sibling rule 2 and a half years later, which means if you have a younger or older sibling you are guaranteed a place. This means that people who lied on previous forms or have since moved,but have a younger or older sibling will get a guaranteed place over a child who lives on the doorstep. So yes, you are right in what you say and i feel the way i do because i live 215 metres from the school and my child is not guaranteed a place. I too, know people who live miles away and should attend their own local school but they lied and won a place, and because they have younger siblings they will get in the juniors and there is nothing anyone can do about it unfortunately. So I do not need to imagine how i would feel if this happens because it is happening now and i know exactly how it feels.

Anonymous said...

I have a daughter in year 2 at Cheam park farm and like every other parent in this situation I am concerned about my daughters future, yet still it seems screamingly obvious that the sibling rule needs to be and should be in place. How would parents be expected to get 2 or more children to seperate schools that start their day at the same time? I totally agree with the campaign regarding instant transfer but personally i dont feel the sibling rule comes into that.

sue said...

In answer to anon above. I agree the sibling rule should be in place, I have never said it shouldnt. My point was that it was not in place when many parents joined the school. Parents were told the two schools were now separate and the younger sibling rule that guaranteed a place at juniors no longer applied. If the sibling rule had been in place at that time then parents would have been able to make a more informed decision on which school to place their child in. A lot of parents I know would have chosen a different school such as cheam Fields, brookfield or cheam common. Parents with one or more siblings joined the school knowing their children would not be guaranteed a place and could end up in different schools, this was an informed gamble they took. When the sibling rule was then recently reintroduced their gamble paid off. No one begrudges their childrens places, they cant possibly be in 2 places at once. i just dont think the goalposts should have been moved for those parents who do not have more than one child in the school 2 and a half years after they joined. The fair thing would have been to take all of the children because those without siblings were denied the right of being able to make a fully informed choice of school for their child.

Juliet said...

Well said Sue, couldn't of put it better myself.

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...

They are representing us, the Junior School parents and pupils! And why did the Local Authority choose to "blatantly ignore" the issue for three years? And only now give a weak offer of a mobile classroom?

v s said...

That's nice a junior school parent on here, how lucky for you!!! Your child is already in the school, infant's transferring will not effect your class sizes, don't get what your problem is! Saying that I don't understand why the junior parents are so bothered by this, it's not like their class sizes will change. It's very easy to take the high ground when you are already in the school.

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...

So, junior school parents believe the governors are representing them, do they? If you do the maths, by the time the infants are in the school and the " vision of smaller class sizes is realised you will all have left! So it will in fact, only benefit the infant school parents, who incidently dont want it! So who are the governors representing exactly!

J C said...

The governors are clearly representing the school itself. It has not taken into consideration the infants children or anyone else's wishes including MP's council execs, and the admissions forum, which is an independent view entirely. You can say what you like about the council being to blame but they have shown a willingness to resolve this situation and try to reach a compromise with the school. The school on the other hand has slammed the door on them and refused all offers of a compromise. You cannot reason with them quite obviously. They are making themselves the bad guys with their stubborn behaviour and refusal to reach a compromise with the council and parents. As someone previously pointed out the council refused the schools request to change the pan initially and they went above the council to an adjudicator. How can anyone now blame the council. Unless of course they mean why have the council not expanded or built other schools to house these children. I am completely unconnected to the council but my answer to that would be, why would they need to house these children elsewhere when there is room in the juniors for them to go where they have always gone in the past.

Anonymous said...

We really need a dialogue with all the Governors.

I think most parents of children at the infants would welcome an opportunity to discuss concerns with all the Governors in person. However I can also understand, due to strength of feeling, they may feel uncomfortable facing such a large number of people. Might I suggest 11 Parents and 11 Governors? This way both parties are equal and both sides would have an opportunity to put their case forward.

How can we teach our children how to resolve issues if we do not lead by example?

cheam park farm 105 campaigners said...

Thanks anon above. That is an excellent idea. We can certainly put that forward. However, as the governors refused us and our representatives an audience at last weeks meeting its doubtful they will agree, but we will give it a try anyway.

School Governor said...

I have no connection whatsoever with either school but as the Chair of Governors of a primary school I have followed this debate with great interest. I did not feel it appropriate to contribute however I am so angry at the content of the last comment I feel I must have a say.

It is totally inexcusable for the Governors to refuse to meet with parents(actual or prospective). I cannot conceive of the arrogance that would motivate a Governing Body to take a decision and then refuse to defend that position face to face.

I feel qualified to comment on this as some years ago I was faced with taking a decision for our school which would have been extremely unpopular with parents. I called an open meeting and for over two hours engaged in debate with over 150 parents. The vast majority of whom were extremely angry which they vented at myself and colleagues. I did not enjoy the experience, but I would fight for their right to do it again. If you are not prepared to stand up and defend what you believe to be right, then get out and make room for someone with more backbone.

I have not heard the Governor's argument (it sounds as though few have!) so I will refrain from commenting on the issue itself.

Juliet said...

To the School Governor, thank you so much for your post. It is so very hard to try and reason or compromise with someone when they won't even give you the courtesy of meeting with you face to face. Such a shame you're not on the junior school governors!

cheam park farm 105 campaigners said...

School governor above. We really appreciate your comments today, It has renewed our faith in the whole governing body system to know there are governors that would be prepared to meet and let us exercise our rights as future parents. The governors denied us the right of appeal and they are denying us the right to speak too. We will continue to try to get an audience with the governors with refreshed hope, that some of the governors from our school may be just as understanding and compassionate as yourself.

Anonymous said...

Has a request been made to meet the Governerning Body since their decision? I can understand their refusal to welcome you at a formal Governing body meeting as they are private meetings and from reading previous hostile omments on here, I can appreciate their reluctance. I too sit on a Gov body, but would not be comfortable making key decisions with a emotionally charged audience.

M G said...

A previous suggestion related to 11 parents meeting with the 11 Governors, thereby making it even on both sides and removing the possible discomfort of the Governors facing a large group of frustrated parents. I think this would be an excellent idea.
Without trying to put either the Governor or the person who also sits on a governing body (who have posted above) on the spot, would either of you have any suggestions of how to arrange such a meeting. Do either of you know if there is a procedure or regulation that we could raise that would persuade them to discuss their rationale at a formal meeting. I don't want to draw either of you into the debate but would welcome any suggestions on how to break a stalemate. I would also say that alot of the hostile comments are born out of frustration and uncertainty, I can see why this may deter the Governors from wanting to meet the parents.

cheam park farm 105 campaigners said...

We, as 3 parents, not as a large campaign group asked to attend the meeting which was called in exceptional circumstances. Representation from our local MP and/or the local conservative candidate was also refused. The hostility has not come from us directly. It has grown from the many doors that have been slammed on parents, and the frustrations that have built over the past 4 months. If we, as 3 mums with no experience in public speaking or campaign managing are prepared to stand before 11 governors, as we did at an admissions forum (which we were informed is not generally open to the public either, but they allowed us to attend) and council executives to speak for our children then who should have been more reluctant and uncomfortable, them or us. We have just finished a draft letter asking again for the governors to meet with us.

Anonymous said...

dont do it on your own girls! take another 9 with you. the 11/11 idea is a really good one.

Anonymous said...

so, what next? i pray you have not just conceded defeat? My daughter has just found out she didnt get the high school place she wanted along with the rest of her friends. i kept the news from her until now because i knew she would be devastated. Devastated is actually not the correct word, beside herself with grief would be a more apt description. Keep fighting the fight, dont stop. I cannot bear to put my younger child through this hell as well.

Cheam Park Farm 105 Campaigners said...

Rest assured we have certainly not given up! Not sure if you're a CPFI parent or not, but presuming you are you will find out on Monday in your childs book bag our next move. There are several things going on at the moment, unfortunately none of which we can say about on here. This denial by the governors is not the first bit a bad news we have had, we didn't give up at the others and we will not give up now either. There are other avenues we are investigating, they may how won this battle, but the war is far from over!

cheam park farm 105 campaigners said...

We would also like to add that we are very sorry to hear that your daughter did not get the school she had hoped for. This is exactly what we are trying to avoid with our younger children which is why we will not give up. Our thoughts are with you.

School Governor said...

Replying to M G above.

Apologies for the delay in replying to your request. I am not aware of an procedure or regulation that can be used to force a Governing Body to hold a meeting or to account for a decision. However, you might wish to try the goverance section of Local Education Department (main swithboard 020 8770 5000).

Sorry I cannot help further.

M G said...

Thank you for your response and help. Hopefully this Campaign will have a happy outcome in the end. Fingers cr.ossed

Anonymous said...

filled in the questionaire, think you should have put the 11/11 question in it as to whether we wanted to speak to the governors via the campaigners or not. We all have so much to say but there is nowhere or no one to say it all to.

Anonymous said...

agree with above. i have lots to say too and many questions i would like answered. if the governors thought their letter was satisfactory, they were wrong. They should face us and our children. They made decisions regarding our childrens lives without even consulting us. Who cares if they feel uncomfortable meeting with us, dont they think we and our children are uncomfortable being put through this game they are playing with the council and the infant school of who is the most powerful. I, too didnt get the high school for my child i wanted and i live practically on the doorstep and now i have this junior school farce to look forward to.

Cheam Park Farm 105 Campaigners said...

We are in complete agreement, the governors should face us, the parents whose lifes they are affecting. So we have sent an e-mail requesting a meeting with all governors and all Yr 2 parents. As soon as we have a reply we will let you know, although we are not holding our breath!

sue said...

Just spoke to the junior school. I am absolutely livid! I just asked when the minutes from the governors meeting that decided our childrens fate would be available. The meeting took place on the 25th Feb and there was a further already scheduled governors meeting last night at which one would have assumed the minutes would have been signed off. One would have also assumed the minutes would be available shortly, but no, they are apparently not ready yet and wont be signed off until the next governors meeting scheduled in june! For a school that could produce, type and circulate a letter out to parents in the infants school with the bad news the following afternoon, it seems a tad strange that the minutes from that meeting wont be available for 4 Months!

Anonymous said...

dont know why you are suprised. Im not. they have stitched us up all along, why change now. someone said on here previously about us all coming up with conspiracy theories. Who can blame us!

B.J. said...

It is so hard not to get angry at the governors from the junior school. They have not once asked the infant school parents how they feel and what they want, it has come down to the 3 mums to send out a questionnaire asking our opinions, surely that is something the junior school governors should have done before they had their meeting. They seem to forget we are the future parents at the junior school, maybe if when we get in we will show them the same contempt they have shown us.

As for not having the minutes until June, don't get me started on that one, cannot think of anything polite to say, so will say nothing!!!!

I hope they agree to meeting, they had the balls to make the decision, so have the balls to face us!!! They are making a complete joke of themselves and I expect are fast losing any respect amongst other school governers.

Anonymous said...

I am so angry at the Junior school for acting in such a high handed manner. I am beginning to wonder if I want my child to go to this school after all...............

Anonymous said...

I certainly dont want my child to go to this school and completely agree with above. The problem we all have is if you call admissions, the list of schools that actually do have a free place or two are not the schools you would freely want to send your child to either. A few are under special measures,have extremely poor results or are miles away so what can we do. It is such a difficult time and a decision none of us i am sure, will take lightly. This school has a lot to answer for.

Anonymous said...

You could almost believe this school is upsetting parents on purpose, couldnt you? It is a catalogue of errors and lacks forward thinking in all areas. June! wonder what they do not want parents to read before the all important admissions news on who got in and who didnt. I dont want my child in this school either but there arent many viable options. I will, if i gain a place show them my displeasure at every opportunity, financial and otherwise. I spoke to a parent yesterday and she told me she would be taking her child to the school to meet the people responsible for ruining her childs life if she doesnt get a place. I can only imagine the discomfort they will feel in that situation. Just to end, why did the 105 campaigners have the sense to hand out questionaires to ask our opinions and not the juniors. The juniors got the opinion of a bunch of people that have all since left or will be leaving shortly! Get rid of these governors and put our campaigners in there instead, they care what we think and most importantly they care about our children too.

L C G said...

To above, What a great idea!!! completely agree with everything you say! I have seen how hard these ladies have worked for our children and they have the compassion and dedication to the children which seems to be lacking by the Junior school governors at present. As for the questionaires, they dont want our opinion because its not the opinion they want!!
If my child gains a place, I will support the education of my child but supporting them financially, then, no I wont. If they can turn down funding for a classroom etc, they obviously dont need any more cash!!
Lets hope they come to their senses and also have the courage to face us, the parents,to explain themselves.

sue said...

to above, What???????!!!!!!!! dont understand what you are trying to say.

Scully said...

Sue

The comment from 'angel' that you refer to was spam. It sometimes happens and includes a link to some rubbish. I've removed the comment so that no-one clicks on it.

cheam park farm 105 campaigners said...

We have unfortunately still not received a reply from our email sent to the juniors, requesting a meeting with the governors for parents. We have so far not even received an acknowledgement of our request. We were so apalled at the minutes to february's meeting not being available until june at least, we have also telephoned the school and made a request for a full governing body meeting, so the minutes can be signed off before june and made available to parents as soon as possible. A lot of parents were very interested in reading the minutes and feel they have been let down once again by the school. We regret to inform everyone that to date, that request has also not been answered. Thankyou to the posters above for your kind comments once again and rest assured we are not giving up.

sue said...

Thanks for removing the comment paul. it now looks like i dont understand what L C G is saying though, which of course i do, so just ignore the What????!!! comment from me. good to see paul is still taking an active interest in what his posters are saying. Shame the junior school dont follow his example.

BH concerned junior school parent said...

I sent this letter to the guardian last week, unfortunately it was not printed so I will use this blog to air my views instead.

Dear Guardian,
In response to your article in the March 4th edition
As a parent of a child at Cheam Park Farm Junior, I would like to add my voice to the ground swell of local support of the Cheam Park Farm 105 Group campaign. I am 100% behind it. Let’s face it, they are trying to achieve what the council and school governors are so disastrously failing to do – find school places for local children in local schools. This should be a given right for every parent in a developing country.
The publicised shortfall in school places is well documented. This problem has been a ticking “time bomb” for some time, yet the councillors and governors alike have chosen to ignore it. A group of concerned parents have had no other option but to galvanise a local community in support to even get this on the agenda of the recent governors’ meeting is a appalling. Why is this?
Cheam Park Infants School decided years ago to increase their intake of children, which was then a “feeder school” into the Junior School. I for one, applaud their decision as perhaps they saw the problem ahead of many others. CPFJ did nothing to increase their class size (PAN) at the time, displaying a total disregard or perhaps misunderstanding of the problem. Are these the same governors responsible for this recent act in denying children school places? Has the decision now in some way been made to save “face” is another question entirely.
The school instead, decided to become “independent” in the hope the problem will simply go away. And so the fuse was lit for today’s crisis, and I do not use that word lightly. The Chair of school governors, went one further and very naively commented “if we allow all children this year, this would set a precedent and in terms of fairness and consistency we would be obliged to take the 105 year after year”. Should this not be part of yours and the council’s remit i.e to provide education for all of our children? Is your decision really fair on the 15 children that WILL NOT have a school place this year?
In a letter to parents at CPFJ, we were informed that an additional classroom would take up playground space. However, I understand that schools in the borough were built with the ability to add further classrooms in the event of increased population. Indeed, the foundations at CPFJ are deep enough to build upwards so required space would be limited. The CPF 105 group have already approached the council for funding, why didnt the juniors?
The fact that the recent governors meeting (held behind closed doors) voted almost unanimously against, merely supports my view that they remain ill informed to the current problems and consequence of such inaction. Further supporting evidence presented itself when a (name withheld) councillor knocked on my door canvassing for support. He asked if I had any issues. We discussed my concerns about the school, of which he was totally unaware (i) local feeling (ii) ability to build a new classroom on current site (iii) PAN sizes (iv) adjudicators report. I was totally gobsmacked to learn during our conversation that he was actually one of the school governors!!! I now wonder if he was the “1” that voted in favour after being made aware of the real issues? I would call for an open debate on this subject. It is not too late for governors to change their mind and make the right decision.
Lastly, a word of caution for all parents, that this might not yet affect. You will have the same fight to face in next year’s intake for your/family/friends children so why not make a stand today for what is right for our children. This is a very important issue and if not for the 15 pupils that will not have a school place in the borough in September, appalling as that is, do it for tomorrow’s children.

Juliet said...

To BH, thank you for your support, it is good to know at that some parents at the juniors are with us. I would like to point out though, it is the junior schools fault there is a difference in PAN's, they reduced theirs to 90, after agreeing to 105 with the infants. (As far as I am aware). This whole problem is because 11 governors are not interested in anything infant school parents have to say. From the questionnaires we have received back, one of the biggest complaints was the fact the junior school didn't consult with current infant school parents. Let us hope this really is not over, after all, all we need is to change the minds of 5 governors!

L C G said...

Just got my Sutton Scene council magazine, on page 5 is an article about primary school places,and they are consulting on expanding 7 schools. Cheam Common,Barrow Hedges,Devonshire,Beddington,Hackbridge,Dorchester & Muschamp! There is such a lack of places and CPFJ is cutting back! Its utter madness! We should all cut this article out and send it to the Junior School Governors highlighting the problem that they are adding to!

Anonymous said...

the infants did at some point take 15 extra students many years ago i have been informed. Like BH above, i do not think this was a bad thing because obviously the need to take them must have been there. It appears the juniors have had a wish to shed these 15 students for many years and the unlucky 15 this year appear to be paying the price. The juniors are getting what they have wanted for years and it appears they are getting their revenge on the infants for taking these extras.I completely agree with your campaign and you should keep digging and crashing down doors when they are slammed on you. Why should your children pay the price and suffer the consequences of a feud that begun before your children were even born. good luck and i pray you are successful. I am a parent with a child in both schools and although my second child is guaranteed a place, she also stands to lose her friends.

Cheam Park Farm 105 campaigners said...

We are writing on here to the parent who has returned their questionnaire as we are presuming they go on here as they have mentioned it on one of their answers. We would like to say we are not bully's by any stretch of the imagination, and we resent being called one. You obviously have a serious problem with the campaign. Instead of sending in anonymous posts on here and questionnaires anonymously, please feel free to come and see us to discuss your issues.

cheam park farm 105 campaigners said...

There is still no response from the junior school, not even an acknowledgement of our requests to meet or a response regarding our further request to make the minutes from the meeting available to us before june. These minutes should be made available to parents under the freedom of information act and the school is denying our rights under this act as well as denying our children a local school place. If the school believes we will simply go away if they ignore us, they are very mistaken.

Anonymous said...

I personally know the 3 ladies who are running the 105 campaign and not one of them has a bullying bone in their bodies. Just because someone is in the minority they are obviously feeling threatened enough to label these 3 caring mums as bullies. I have no idea what this person has said about bullying and neither do i care but it must have been quite bad for the campaigners to react to one comment. Just because they have had the guts to stand up for their children does not entitle anyone to be so disrespectful to them. They do not have their massive support through bullying, they have it through respect and admiration for caring for our children. These ladies have played an extremely active roll within the infants and it would be fair to say they care about what happens to each and everyone of these children. They all live very close by and I doubt very much if their children will be the victims in this admissions crisis.For the last time, no one including the campaigners have a desire for large classes but we do not want 15 children left out in the cold either. For those who are selfish enough to not care about the left out children, are you not the bullies? Putting your childs class size above the wants or needs of someone elses child?

Cheam Park Farm 105 campaigners said...

To the above, thank you so much for your lovely comments. A much needed boost.

School Governor said...

Message to the CPF 105 campaigners. I am really sorry that I need to remain anonymous. However, I have an idea that could help you considerably.

If you would supply Paul Scully with a name and contact number I will get them from him and give you the details of the idea.

I understand Paul’s number is: 07736 338965

Anonymous said...

With regard to the bullying comments perhaps Juliet would like to google Bullying and then read the previous post selfish, self centred ignorant, overpowered idiots have ruled against us. ARE THEY COMPLETELY STUPID! THERE ARE NO SCHOOL PLACES also comments about getting rid of the Govenors and putting our campaigners in their place, would they be fair and approachble or would they just take the 105 come what may and with regard to the "hut" it would not be in place for september Plannng Permission, site survey etc this may or may not have been paid for by LBS but what about the extra books, teachers, classroom assistants etc the school would have to raise this but wouldnt get it from the parents of the children starting Sept 2010 as they are not going to pay anything or sell raffle tickets etc. also from previous post some of you are aware of pupils who shuld not be at CPFI but are because their Parents have lied to get in would the new 105 campaign governors if put in place accept them.

Anonymous said...

to above, grow up. and before you try and pin this one on the campaigners as well, no i am not one of them, i just happen to believe in what they are doing

CPF 105 campaigners said...

This is the reply from the junior school regarding our request to meet them.

Thank you for your email. Your request for a meeting with the full Governing Body has been declined as has your request for an EGM to be held toapprove the minutes of the Admissions EGM. The minutes have now been provisionally agreed by The Chairand will be formally approved by all governors at the nextfull Governing Body meeting. A meeting will be held in the Summer Term for all Year 2children and parents who will be joining the Junior schoolin September 2010.

cheam park farm 105 campaigners said...

Had a fantastic afternoon today. We went with the children to downing street to deliver our petition to number 10 after a personal reply to our question from gordon brown via netmums yesterday. Had a cup of tea in the houses of parliament with paul Burstow and phillipa Stroud and phillipa showed us around after we had delivered the petition. The children were able to purchase a souvenir of their experience in the gift shop and thoroughly enjoyed their vip treatment.

Anonymous said...

The cut off for applications to the junior school has now passed. We have to sit and wait to see who is left out in the cold, which children will lose their best friends, which children will have to go to another school all alone, which children will have to travel miles to school and who will have no school place to attend at all. Well done juniors! When the "lucky" 90 start in september, do us all a favour, wipe the fake smiles that you give to the kids when they walk nervously into school on their first day off your faces, dont pretend you like or care about these children because you so obviously do not.

Anonymous said...

To the above, LOVE IT!!!!

M S said...

Totally Agree!! They dont care about the kids or the feelings or wishes of the parents!! I feel totally let down by the Governors.

Anonymous said...

to above. Well done. Let down by the governors completely sums up the feelings of parents at the infants. They have failed our children,their future pupils.Its no wonder we dont want to support them financially and who can blame us. No one is knocking the education supplied or even the teachers but if they think we will support them, then they have another thing coming.

L C G said...

I will support the education of my child & the teachers but as they have turned down funding to help them,They obviously dont want any more cash so I will not be supporting them financially,or any events they will be holding.I will continue to support infants school at Fayres etc. It doesnt matter if it is 1 or 11 children. ALL the children should get a place at the jnr school. How dare they play with our kids lives & education.......

Anonymous said...

Its 12 kids being chucked out I have been told. Disgraceful!

kirsty said...

My little boy has not got into the juniors. I havent told him the sad news yet. There are currently no places in sutton schools. I would like to ask the junior school governors and everybody who was against the 105 campaign what I am supposed to do next?

Anonymous said...

To above, I am so sorry, This is a situation that need not have happened. Thanks to the shortsighted Governors of the juniors there are 12 parents having to tell their children that they have to be split up from their friends and they have to turn their lives upside down. Appeal and kick up a stink. As a parent who gained a place I consider myself lucky, but it should not have been a lottery every child should have got a place. Good luck Kirsty.XX

CPF 105 campaigners said...

Kirsty, we are so sorry he didn't get in. This is exactly the reason why we started the campaign in the first place. We are gutted we did not get the outcome we wanted. We really hope the appeals panel gives your son a place, having spoken to a mum who has told her son and to be told of how he sobbed that he didn't want to leave his friends makes us very sad and angry that these children's feeling are of no importance to the school governors. Best of luck with your appeal.

Anonymous said...

I hope the governors are hanging their heads in shame at the distress they have caused these children.

L C G said...

I agree totally with the comments above, the governors have not once given a thought to these poor children and their families and the heartache they have caused. And this will be repeated every year until they realise that more primary places are needed not less. Good luck to all the parents going to appeal. Governors, realise your BIG mistake and rectify it.

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!