Parents in Staines fight Shortwood School closure plan

Parents of a Surrey school threatened with closure have taken a 1,000 strong petition to Downing Street.

BBC Story
Surrey County Council is considering shutting Shortwood Infants School and Playbox Playgroup in Staines because of falling pupil numbers.

The local authority says it has a duty to act because the school is only 57% full this year.

Parents have accused the council of short-sightedness and said pupil numbers have been rising since 2006.

If the plans are approved, the school – which has 85 children and 15 staff – will close at the end of August.

All reception and year one pupils would be transferred to other schools in the neighbourhood.

Teachers demand smaller classes pledge from ministers

By Angela Harrison
BBC News education correspondent, Liverpool

The average class size for infants in England was 26.2 pupils

Cutting class sizes in schools in England should be a top priority for any new government, teachers have said.

Some classes are still “hideously over-crowded,” said the head of the National Union of Teachers, Christine Blower.

The union, meeting in Liverpool, is calling for classes to be limited to 20 children by 2020, to give children “the best opportunity”.

Schools in England are not allowed to have more than 30 children in classes for five to seven-year-olds.

In Scotland, there is a commitment to cut class sizes for the three first years of primary school to 18 pupils, but the Scottish Nationalists have faced criticism over delays in achieving that aim.

A snapshot survey in England of 700 NUT members by the union found almost six in 10 thought cutting class sizes should be among the top priorities of a new government.

‘Hideously overcrowded’

When Labour came to power in 1997, it promised a legal limit of 30 children for infant classes (five to seven-year-olds).

Ms Blower said although she could not say that Labour had not kept its promise, this had never been enough.

“There are still schools that are hideously overcrowded, trying to fit 30 children in a class,” she said.

And although there were limits on class sizes for the youngest children, when pupils moved up the school, classes got bigger.

Experience shows being in a class of 34 or 35 children “isn’t as good as being in a class or 27 or 28,” Ms Blower said.

The union said at a primary school in Gloucester where pupil numbers had fallen, two classes were being merged into one for 36 children.

Latest data available – released by the government in May last year – showed the average class size for infants in England was 26.2 pupils – a small increase on the previous year.

Among juniors (eight to eleven-year-olds) class sizes had fallen to an average of 26.8 pupils, down from 27 the previous year.

Schools Minister Vernon Coaker said: “Over the last 10 years Labour has massively increased the number of adults teaching children, meaning smaller class sizes and more individual attention for pupils.

“There are now 41,000 more teachers and over 120,000 more teaching assistants than 1997 – the biggest school workforce ever.

“We are determined to build on that with a guarantee of one-to-one and small group tuition for children falling behind in the 3Rs.”

He said the only way to do this and keep all the extra teachers and teaching assistants was to continue real term rises in schools funding over the next three years.

Liberal Democrat schools spokesman David Laws said his party would give money to schools to cut class sizes and not allow them to grow any bigger.

“It is disgraceful that thousands of young children are in classes so big that they are illegal.

“Huge classes are more difficult for teachers to control and young children can miss out on the individual attention they need, ” he said.

Building Schools For The Future

This is a program Labour brought in to help local authorities keep up with capacity issues with schools, and also to improve facilities. Many areas have benefitted from this funding, which has been considerable.

Surrey has just failed in its bid in the latest round of available funds. They will be able to re-apply, as areas of most need get the best chance at the cash. However, the application itself recognises the need for improving schools locally and dealing with future lack of capacity.

In this context, it seems even more short sighted to consider closing Shortwood Infant School. Better organisation of the school catchment, improved transport and better promotion of schools like this one would help.

It’s good to hear though that the campaigners have generated so much interest in the school that they may generate a full intake in September. Amazing work!

Posted by Mark Chapman at 8:53 AM 0 comments Links to this post

Labels: BSF, Labour, Shortwood

Immigration is causing shortage of school places. But the BBC doesn’t want to know

By Ed West UK Last updated: July 15th, 2009

There have been at least two features on Radio 4 in the past 36 hours dealing with the shortage of primary school places in London, which they attribute to parents pulling out of the private sector. Only at the very end of the segment this morning did their correspondent mutter about “other factors”, coughing “immigration” right at the end.

How strange, because in fact immigration is overwhelmingly the biggest cause of the increase, as this newspaper reports today. In the last eight years the number of births to foreign mothers has increased by 64 per cent; at the same time birth rates among British-born mothers rose by 6 per cent.

That’s nationwide – you can double that first figure in London, and while in Richmond and Kingston the sudden unaffordability of private education may be a factor, it’s quite clear none of the new arrivals in the schools in my part of town are called Tarquin or Arabella.

Christopher Caldwell, in his earth-shattering book Reflections on the Revolution in Europe (yes, I’m still banging on about that), analyses the capitalist argument for mass immigration which, he says, “runs counter to classical economic theory and is being challenged with increasing rigor by economists.”

He quotes Philippe Legrain’s pro-immigration book Your Country Needs Them which states that if rich countries allowed their workforce to swell by a mere 3 per cent by letting in 14 millions workers the rich countries would be $139 billion a year better off.

This, Caldwell says, smacks of either naivete or mystification. “In context, $139 billion is simply not that much money: It is 0.0035, or roughly one three-hundreth, of the advanced countries’ output. It is about a sixth of the US government’s 2009 stimulus plan.”

As Caldwell says: “The social, spiritual, and political effects of immigration are huge and enduring, while the economic effects are puny and transitory. If, like certain Europeans, you are infuriated by polygot markets and street signs written in Polish, Urdu, and Arabic, sacrificing 0.0035 of your economy would be a pittance to pay for starting to get your country back.

If, like other Europeans, you view immigration as a lifeline of excitement, worldliness, and palatable cuisine thrown to your drab and provincial country, then immigration would be a bargain even if it imposed a significant economic cost.”
So what about the costs? He quotes Oxford demographer David Coleman, who says in tallying up the economics of immigration we must factor in:

“The total costs of the integration process, and of the associated immigration and race relations business, the costs of meeting the special education, health, and housing needs of immigrants, the net effects upon the education of ordinary children in immigrant areas, the permanent needs to ‘regenerate’ urban areas of immigrant settlement instead of demolishing them, issues of crime and public order, [and] the multiplier effect on future immigrantion.”

Which brings us back to the effect on schools. Unlike the Government and the BBC, the Cross Party Group on Balanced Migration said the figures suggested that the pressure on primary schools was intimately connected to lack of border controls.

Frank Field, the Labour MP, and Nicholas Soames, a Conservative, who co-chair the group, said that in 25 local authorities the majority of births were now to foreign-born women. This compares with 10 in 2001, they said.
“The need to increase funding for primary schools is a direct result of mass immigration feeding into our population,” they said in a statement.

“The number of births to foreign mothers has risen by 65 per cent since 2001 while the number of births to UK born mothers has only risen by 6.4 per cent. This is a major reason for the pressure on our primary schools but the Government remain in denial about the consequences of their losing control of our borders. Instead they refer to ‘local circumstances’. This is deliberately misleading.”

So why, you might ask, is the BBC parroting the official government line?

Hundreds of families hit by shortage of school places

With the Surrey County Council pushing its case that there are surpluses in primary places as a reason for the closure of Shortwood Infant School then they should probably ready this….
.
(Evening Standard)

Overlooked: Dr Liz Taylor with son William, who has been denied a school place in Camden

The parents of more than 130 children without a place at primary school were today demanding answers from education chiefs

A summit between the group and Camden council was called after 133 children due to start primary school in the borough were left without a place. A further 74 were told there was no room at their four choices and have been allocated a space elsewhere.

The shortage of primary school places is a city-wide trend prompted by a baby boom and fuelled by the credit crunch, which has made parents opt for state schools over private. Liberal Democrat councillor Alexis Rowell said the borough needed government funding for a new school.
“Parents looking for a state-funded non-faith school face a stark choice — pay, drive to the other end of Camden, pretend to be religious or move away,” he said. Sadat Simmons, 37, from Finchley Road, applied to four schools for her daughter Samira, four, but did not get an offer and has to join a three month waiting list for an alternative.

She said: “It is incredibly frustrating and disappointing. We did everything we could and still we end up with nothing. They must have known there was a shortage of places.”
Guluzar Kartal, 34, also from Finchley Road, was told to apply to schools in Holborn, King’s Cross or Kentish Town for her daughter because there was little chance of getting a place at the five schools within half a mile of her door. “To be told you are not being accepted by schools around the corner is shocking,” she said.
Dr Liz Taylor, whose son William also failed to get a place, said: “I have visited 13 schools. I discovered a big black hole in primary school provision.”
London Councils, which lobbies for the 32 boroughs, revealed a shortage of 2,250 places for September, which will rise to 5,000 next year. In some areas temporary buildings and larger class sizes have been introduced.
Camden council is running a working group with parents of the children affected to investigate solutions. A spokesman for the council said: “We will continue to work with parents to offer advice and support to help them secure a school place.
“This is part of a London-wide issue and Camden has joined the London Councils campaign to ensure this is addressed and that central government is lobbied for further funding.”
The Department for Schools, Children and Families said: “Local authorities are under a duty to make sure every child of compulsory school age has a suitable place.
“We have already agreed and allocated funding for schools for 2008-2011 based on pupil projections, but London Councils is looking into whether these were accurate.”
 
 

Reader views (15)
Add your view
The shame of it is that whilst the local authority has been granting permission to carve up houses into flats, they have not added any more services for the long suffering tax payer. The inability for a major metopolitain bourough like Camden to provide high quality, local and convenient education is a disgrace-the senior mangers should be impeached! We pay taxes so the state can provide us with services-if we cannnot use those services it rasies the question of “why pay taxes?”

- David Hamilton, London England
ALAN PREEN, the answer is, we take what is offered, or move house, to the nearest good school if we can afford too that is, and why????? because some of these immigrant kids as you put it!!!!!take what is given without question, why??? they thirst for education and are grateful, tommorows Doctor’s Lawyer’s Accounant’s Teachers, and those who can afford it go PRIVATE, LOOK AT STATISTICS IN UK.

- Sorraya, croydon
Rachel and Gary are correct. Why do we pay taxes? Not to prop up poorly run scotish banks or pay MP’s expences but for health and th national health system

- Ge, Cornwall
How many immigranr kids, legal or otherwise, have places at these schools while English kids are denied their rights?

- Alan Preen, McLean, Texas, USA.
These children were born in London. There is a baby boom among all social groups. These things are cyclical. Most people would not want to pay for half empty schools but that will occur at times in the cycle, local government will always have problems getting the number of places exactly right. London was shedding population, now people have chosen to move back into London and they do not leave for the suburbs when their children are school age. Yes build a new school. Where? Land is expensive, whose house and garden do you compulsorily purchase to create the space?

Even if a new school is built it will still be over a mile away from some of the families seeking places now.

- Daphne, London UK
Rather than ranting about Church schools, why not direct your energies towards campaigning for better state school provision in your area?

- Kitty, London
Crash Gordon said it clearly “Education, Education, Eductation”. Again he missed his own targets… Why is he still in his un-elected position of power?!??

- Steveo, London NW1
I support Gary’s comment in that if we have all this money to support the banks, where an earth was all our taxes for the Schools and Health Services over the past years. It is simply disgraceful that a wealthy country such as ourselves cannot fully fund school places for all children regardless of ability of disability, and including primary, secondary and university education.

- Rachel Brett, Abbots Langley, UK
To justify their preferential admission of children of observant parents, church schools claim that they admit children of all religions and none. I admit that, in a sense of “inclusive”, Church schools are inclusive. But what a weak sense of “inclusive”! By becoming observant, I can hugely increase the chance that my child a school place in Camden from a virtual impossibility (our flat is surrounded by small church schools and too far from any community school to have a chance of admission) to a virtual certainty. I can also save £3,400 per child per church service I attend if my alternative is private schooling. (6 months of churchgoing are needed to obtain the letter from the priest/vicar needed for the admissions committee to consider my child “religious”.) Paradoxically, the church schools here will take a “religious child” from Durham before taking a local “nonreligious” child. Why is a parent’s observance considered an appropriate basis for increasing a child’s chance?
Furthermore, church schools violate children’s right to an objective education on different religious belief systems. While church schools do teach children about other religions, they present some of the most controversial propositions that have been expressed (Jesus is the son of God) as though they were axioms. Should I tell my five-year old to suspend judgment during school prayers and to consider if her teachers’ pronouncements are justified?

- Dr Neema Sofaer, Camden, London, UK
I am one of the parents described in the article. I live in Belsize Park and wasn’t offered a place for my son at any of the four choices we made. I applied to the four nearest community school in order of distance from our home. We are not religious people and I wasn’t prepared to go to church as some of my friends have (some of them are not even Christian) and so I was not offered anything. The primary school system is completely bound up with religious institutions, primarily the church, in Camden, and it is almost impossible for non religious people to find a place in nearby schools. We were forced to go private which is proving to be very hard for us financially but we felt that we had no choice. We were finally offered a place at a school on the other side of the borough which was inaccessible and clearly had a number of problems – hence there were places available.

- Katy B., London
It is stated that we have payed for these services, No we have not, the school buildings if new were probably built on a PFI contract, a 30 year mortgage to you and me, and the funds used to pay the monthly mortgage are being borrowed. Oh the joy of good old fashioned spin aka propoganda.

- Steve M, London
We often hear about human rights, what about these children’s rights, rights we the working tax payers have paid for and expect as a right – not with a bit of luck. The government has pumped billions into the banks against the publics wishes yet education and health they are cutting billions. I understand the Government has claimed back 1. 4 billion pounds from the English NHS and plan to cut the English NHS budget by 2 billion next year. The public have paid for these services and expect them.

- Gary, Brentwood
The system is geared to encourage larger families with benefits etc. But the infrastructure isn’t? We have censors taken every decade or so, but it is clearly too long between. There is the council tax forms and from this we can see that Camden Council does not take a blind bit of notice regarding population figures or school performance figures, otherwise there would have been more than adequate places available. When statistics are taken, they should be used and cross referenced, sadly as is the case in many corporations? Incompatible computer systems abound and in this day and age that is not acceptable and should be rectified.

The data is out there. So why is it not used and acted on?

- P. C., rainham. essex.
Their pupil projections will always be wrong on accountof the influx of immigration that is rampant in this country. Has anyone counted how many immigrant children are brought into the school system every year.. I bet it’s millions.

- Lin, LONDON ENGLAND
Education – Another failure for Labour. Well done.
Bring on the election.

- Dave Davies, Basingstoke

Buggy protest to support Shortwood School

Mar 23 2010 By Mark Goode

Parents and children take part in the Buggy protest

PARENTS campaigning to save Shortwood Infants School from closure have vowed to fight on even after the public consultation has ended.

Surrey County Council announced in February that they plan to close the school in Stanwell New Road, and on Friday the public consultation ended.

On the same day a number of parents held a buggy protest outside the school, and they have now said they will keep on fighting until the end.

Ian Winter, chair of the governors, said: “I think the council are hoping this campaign will all go away and everyone will lose interest. I used to work for a local authority and these kinds of tactics were used. We have a lot more campaigns planned for the future, such as presenting a case at 10 Downing Street in April.”

Due to rainy weather on Friday, not all the mothers with their push chairs could make the protest, but the organisers have still deemed it a success.

Around 35 people showed up, including six mothers with their prams, who started to march outside the school from 3.15pm, across the busy A30 and into Staines town centre.

Mr Winter said: “We wanted to show how dangerous it will be for parents who do not drive, because they will have to cross the A30 everyday.

“There is also very little private transport in the area, so each day the mothers would have to cross busy roads to get their children to another school. We have proof of how dangerous they are because a mother had her buggy clipped by a car a while back, and a 12-year-old girl was seriously injured in a near fatal accident on the A30 a few weeks ago.”

Jo Buckingham, a member of the Save Shortwood Committee, said: “I drive my children to school so I have never crossed the A30, but I must say, it was terrifying on Friday. The cars go by so quickly, and when you do cross the road, the pavements are very narrow.

“By the time we got to Staines town centre, some of the children were exhausted. Do the council really expect a four-year-old to walk more than four miles each day to get to school?”

On Thursday parents handed a 1016 strong petition into Surrey County Council, along with parent feedback and a business plan outlying how they could keep the school open.

The school has been meeting with prospective parents to prove to the council that it remains popular.

A decision on whether to close the school is due in May.

Council Leader Questioned

 

Last night, Surrey County Council held a question time-type event called ‘Have Your Say’ in Dorking Halls. The panel was made up of Andrew Povey (Council Leader) and representatives from the Surrey Strategic Partnership including Health, Police, Business Leaders etc. The event was hosted by BBC Radio Surrey.

 

I joined other UNISON colleagues handing out anti-cuts leaflets as people went in. I then joined the meeting.

 

Around 500 residents of Surrey attended and topics ranged from Potholes to Recycling, from Policing to Health Services. A question was read out from Ian (Shortwood Governor) asking if the council was committed to preserving Infants Schools like Shortwood. Andrew Povey was ambiguous in his answer but did say that ‘some school just get too small to be viable’.

 

I raised questions about the range of cuts proposed by the council (such as the recent leak about Fire Service cuts) and the impact this will have on services, such as those for vulnerable adults.

 

I did get a chance to catch up before the meeting with Denise (our local councillor who sits on the cabinet which will have the final decision) to talk about Shortwood and she assured me she supported the school remaining open but that we will have to demonstrate that numbers will rise and remain viable in the medium to long term. I think you have all done that admirably.

 

Paul Couchman

Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition Parliamentary Candidate for Spelthorne

www.paulcouchman.com

 

3000 Signatures to Surrey Council which say “Don’t Close Shortwood”

 

On March the 18th members of the committee to protect the wonderful 125 year old Shortwood Infant school went to the Surrey council offices on the eve of the council consultation on the fate of the school.

Mark Burton – School Place Planning Manager for Surrey Council was given a box, which from his surprised expression may have been considerably more than than he was expecting.

A box, however, was what was needed to contain the community feedback from the growing awareness of the councils plans for this small infant school in the nothern Staines area.

Inside the box were, images, letters, a DVD, news articles and  3000 signatures – some of them in the form of a digital petition, but the vast majority in in the form of full replies to the consultation, using the councils own reply forms. 

2000 individuals had taken the time to write their views of the closure and demand that the council properly reconsider its proposal. This is a significant achevement for a school with places for 80 students, plus a further 40 from the associated playbox nursey group which will also be severely impacted if the closure goes ahead.

This many signatures, taken as a percentage of the local community population is very significant. 90,000 people are on the Spelthorn electoral role, perhaps 20,000 in northern Staines. This in mind, 3000 petitioners represents a full 15% of the total population of that area – and this support acheived after only a month since the beginning of the consultation.

More than anything, however, this indicates that the school occupies a greater worth to the northern Staines community than understood by the council.

This may be due to the demonstratable lack of other viable educational alternatives in the area or possibly a fightback to the loss of services in this community which has seen proposals to have its hospitals and firestations closed – and now its schools.

The Surrey Council should take note that closure of services, in this case schools, should be conducted with appropriate consideration of future growth in the area, proper attention to the statuatory rights of parents to have the education provisions that they need, and with evaluation undertaken under the specified consultation guidelines and on appropriately accurate data.

The council needs to be fully aware of the implications of closing proven, well performing and effective services in Surrey’s most deprived areas.

So far the councils performance has not been good.

• The proposal to close the school went ahead without any prior warning that the school was under threat.
• The consultation was called when school applications had closed making it impossible for the school to redress any enrolment shortfall.
• The consultation was not advertised – a legal requirement
• That council have provided inaccurate data regarding suitable alternative schools in the area.
• Alternative schools in the area are not as well rated by ofsted, are faith schools, or are oversubscribed
• The council has failed to consider the fate of Playbox and its 40 children which have no other venue.
• The council members who have attended the meeting have repeatedly been unable to satisfactorily address parental questions or concerns.
• The council have inadequately considered the implications of travelling to alternative schools for transport restrictions, safety concerns, green agenda, and additional expenses to parents.
• The council provided inaccurate birth and growth data, and provided this information too late to be of use to the committee despite constant pressure.
• The council have inaccurately overrepresented the cost of small schools and have not made a convincing case for closing a historically viable 125 year old established school in a growing community in an area where the bulk of ofsted approved schools are already oversubscribed.
• They have not paid attention to the historical significance of the school as the oldest building in Staines which is still being used for the purpose for which is was build.
• They have not acknowledged the importance of the school as a safehaven alternative for vulnerable, bullied, and assited learning children.
• They have asserted that smaller schools are less effective in providing learning opportunities, whereas most research shows the opposite.
• The council has not answered the committee on how it expects that the closure of will benefit the area if new school facilites need to be built to mitigate the existing shortfall of school places.

These failings seem to indicate a disturbing undercurrent of collusion and conspiracy around the fate of the school – a feeling which is only enhanced by the tight lipped attitude of Council members involved with the decision making process.

It may be that the Council is not attempting to consult with the community at all, and that the decision has already been made in the dealing dark corners of the Council chambers. That this consultation is, in fact, a sham designed to retain some traction with the voters of this community.

The most damning evidence that this is likely is the Surrey County Council’s record of having closed 9 schools in 9 years – all of them infant schools.

Buggy protest to support Shortwood School

Mar 23 2010 By Mark Goode

Parents and children take part in the Buggy protest

PARENTS campaigning to save Shortwood Infants School f rom closure h ave vowed to fight on e ven after the public consultation has ended.

Surrey County Council announced in February that they planto shut the school in Stanwell New Road, and on Friday the public consultation ended.

On the s ame day a n umber of parents held a buggy protest outside the school, and they’ve now s aid they w ill k eep on fighting u ntil the end.

Ian Winter, chair of the governors, said: “I t hink the council are hoping this campaign w ill all go a way and e veryone w ill lose interest. I u sed to work for a local authority and t hese kinds of tactics w ere used. We have a lot m ore campaigns planned for the future, such as p resenting a c ase at 10 D owning Street in April.”

Due to rainy weather on Friday, not all the moms with t heir push chairs could make the protest, but the organisers h ave s till deemed it a success.

Around 35 people s howed up, including six mothers with their prams, who started to march outside the school from 3.15pm, across the busy A30 and i nto Staines town centre.

Mr Winter said: “We w anted to s how how perilous it will be for parents who do not drive, because they will h ave to cross the A30 everyday.

“There is also veryTiny private transport in the area, so e ach day the mothers would have to cross busy roads to get t heir kids to another school. We have proof of how dangerous t hey are b ecause aMom had her buggy clipped by a automobile a w hile back, and a 12-year-old girl was seriously hurt in a near fatal accident on the A30 a few weeks ago.”

Jo Buckingham, a m ember of the Save Shortwood Committee, said: “I drive my children to school so I have n ever crossed the A30, but I must say, it was terrifying on Friday. TheAutomobilesgo by so quickly, and when you do cross the road, the pavements are very narrow.

“By the time we got to Staines town centre, some of the kids w ere exhausted. Do the council really anticipate a four-year-old to walk more t han four miles e ach day to get to school?”

On Thursday parents handed a 1016 strong petition i nto Surrey County Council, a long with parent feedback and a business plan outlying how they c ould k eep the school open.

The school has b een meeting w ith prospective parents to prove to the council t hat it remains popular.

A decision on whether to closethe school is due in May.

Committee unhappy with council over quality of key data.

Dear Sir / Madam

I would like to express extreme concerns as a local tax payer and a school governor over the issues raised by Mr Tewari.
Surely when making decisions that will have a substantial impact on present and future Children’s and Parents education and lives proper attention should be paid to all available and up to date relevant data.

The financial and educational consequences of your decisions if based on flawed data and poor strategic planning will impact Children’s education and potential safety as well as local tax payers pockets.

All of those who have been involved in the ‘Proposal for Closure’ consultation period have grave concerns about elements of bias in some elements of Surrey CC. in their conduct and supporting evidence.

As a group we have been very thorough in evaluating and logging Surrey CC. officials responses during the consultation, we have also been seeking independent legal and regulatory advice for any subsequent phases to the campaign  Surrey CC. has a statutory obligation to it’s electorate that we as a group will ensure is observed.
Yours Sincerely Ian Winter (Chair of Governors Shortwood Infants School)