Parents at war over school proposals

Adam Hewitt • Published 30 Sep 2010 09:30 20 Comments

See also:

FEELINGS ran high at last night's public meeting over school catchment changes which ran out-of-control for long periods as parents vented their anger.

A group of parents from East Reading, who have traditionally sent their children to Maiden Erlegh School, are furious at being “disenfranchised” under proposals that would see them become part of the designated catchment area of Woodley’s Bulmershe School instead.

But mums and dads from areas of Lower Earley who stand to gain from the changes, some of whom have been campaigning for years to make the catchment areas more logical, are also fighting to get their voices heard.

Party politics, cross-boundary resentment, house prices, child safety, the closure of Ryeish Green, Maiden Erlegh’s Academy status bid and the free schools plan were all dragged into the debate, held in the school hall by Wokingham Borough Council last night as a first step of a months-long consultation process.

--FOR a full report from the meeting and what happens next, see next week’s Reading Midweek and Reading Chronicle.

The Chronicle has received many letters on this subject and welcomes your views.

Write to: ahewitt@berksmedia.co.uk

or by post to Reading Chronicle Newsroom, 50-56 Portman Road, Reading, RG30 1BA.

Have your say. Post a comment on this article.

Common Sense
Unregistered User
Oct 1, 11:27
Report comment

The criteria for school entrances needs a total overhaul!

1st priority should be based on your residential distance from the School

2nd priority to your council boundaries

If this had been implemented 30 years ago when they built 30000 houses they would have built a school at the top of Lower Earley years ago!

If you choose to move during your childrens education then even siblings should be considered on the above entrance criteria. I think its bending all the rules over the years that have got us in this very sorry mess.

Recommend? Yes 0 No 0
Earley Resident
Unregistered User
Oct 1, 12:47
Report comment

Common sense is indeed speaking common sense.

The current catchments are illogical and I can understand Lower Earley residents being upset about having to travel past ME to get to Bulmershe, but what is being proposed is also a dogs breakfast and its not just Reading residents who are losers in this. This is a review of ALL Wokingham catchments and other Wokingham residents are losing out too.

If Wokingham continue to allow houses to be built, those who currently stand to gain from this will still lose out because they are just too far away.

This has come about because Ryeish Green closed, what a good idea that was.... not.

And what ever happened to the school in Lower Earley?

Recommend? Yes 0 No 0
1MilefromMaidenErlegh
1 post
Oct 1, 14:04
Report comment

We live just under a mile's walk from Maiden Erlegh School. Surely distance should be taken into account when setting the boundaries for the catchment area.

Recommend? Yes 0 No 0
Talfourd Bob
Unregistered User
Oct 1, 14:15
Report comment

Please can my kids go to their local school. I don't want to keep the current system - but lets base eligibility on distance - nothing else makes much sense.

Bob, Talfourd Ave

Recommend? Yes 0 No 0
Earley born and bred
Unregistered User
Oct 1, 14:31
Report comment

These proposals are short term. And they won't meet the demands of those who in live in lower earley who will still have to go to Bulmershe as Maiden Erlegh will be over subscribed. We need a radical overhaul not short term tinkering. Reading and Wokingham councillors, please work together to sort this out for the sake of all of us.

Recommend? Yes 0 No 0
Stones throw away
Unregistered User
Oct 1, 15:03
Report comment

We moved here, as did our neighbours on both sides knowing it was in ME catchment. It was a deliberate choice. I didn't choose to live in Lower Earley because of how I perceived the secondary school education situation. My neighbours made the same choices for the same reasons. We can see the Wokingham boundary from our house we are that close.

Whilst I understand the plight of those in Lower Earley and totally agree that's it's wrong that they have travel past ME to get to Bulmershe, but they choose to live in Lower Earley. From the meeting they were saying they had been waiting over 20 years to get this sorted out. (If I was a LE resident I'd like to know what took so long and why they didnt build a school there). Why do Reading children have to suffer for the mistakes of WBC who Wokingham people voted for?

At the end of the day we all want the same thing, the choice to go to our nearest school.

As it stands there will still be disappointed Lower Earley residents who still won't get in. If the Sibley Hall development goes through even more of them will be disappointed.

Recommend? Yes 0 No 0
Zarina
Unregistered User
Oct 1, 21:36
Report comment

If we are taken out of Maiden Erlegh DA and we put it down as a preference, the only way it can be considered , is if the school is not oversubscribed .It was confirmed by Wokingham Borough Council that even all those within a new Maiden Erlegh DA cannot be guaranteed a place due to the likelihood over subscription. So in reality there is no choice and only Bulmershe available to Reading parents.

Choice is vital to parents as each school has its own specialism’s and attractions.

Recommend? Yes 0 No 0
CollegeRoadResident
Unregistered User
Oct 1, 22:18
Report comment

Communities are built around local amenities and those amenities build communities and community ties. ME has long been the tied school for primaries such as Alfred Sutton. Children from Alfred Sutton live within walking distance of the Primary AND ME. They currently have a choice of two schools. One is Bulmershe and the other is ME. The current WBC proposal eliminates that choice. As a parent who wants the best for their child our family has made a conscious decision to move to the area to secure the right school for our child. Were our child a sporting talent or with special educational needs we might have considered Bulmershe as these are its areas of particular strength. Our child is on the school’s gifted and talented register for art and DT as well as being very able in maths. ME is a Specialist Arts College. The WBC’s proposals would eliminate this choice. Children are all different and schools are not the same. There must be choice so that children are able to reach their fullest possible potential by being placed in the optimal environment for their particular skills and educational needs.

What is as disturbing is the time frame within which WBC wish to bulldoze this change. Currently all children from years 5 and below would be in all practical terms be precluded from attending ME. Parents wishing to make alternative arrangements, particularly those with children in year 5, are simply left with no time to do so. This cannot be fair and just.

Recommend? Yes 0 No 0
CollegeRoad
Unregistered User
Oct 1, 22:19
Report comment

Communities are built around local amenities and those amenities build communities and community ties. ME has long been the tied school for primaries such as Alfred Sutton. Children from Alfred Sutton live within walking distance of the Primary AND ME. They currently have a choice of two schools. One is Bulmershe and the other is ME. The current WBC proposal eliminates that choice. As a parent who wants the best for their child our family has made a conscious decision to move to the area to secure the right school for our child. Were our child a sporting talent or with special educational needs we might have considered Bulmershe as these are its areas of particular strength. Our child is on the school’s gifted and talented register for art and DT as well as being very able in maths. ME is a Specialist Arts College. The WBC’s proposals would eliminate this choice. Children are all different and schools are not the same. There must be choice so that children are able to reach their fullest possible potential by being placed in the optimal environment for their particular skills and educational needs.

What is as disturbing is the time frame within which WBC wish to bulldoze this change. Currently all children from years 5 and below would be in all practical terms be precluded from attending ME. Parents wishing to make alternative arrangements, particularly those with children in year 5, are simply left with no time to do so. This cannot be fair and just.

Recommend? Yes 0 No 0
Wiseuk
Unregistered User
Oct 2, 13:18
Report comment

An open e-mail to Wokingham Borough Council

1st October 2010

Dear Sir/Madam,

I attended the consultation meeting on Wednesday evening regarding the proposed changes.

I have lived in Lower Earley since I was 10 (I am now 41). When my parents first moved here we lived in Toseland Way and one of the first houses to be built in the Lower Earley development so I have watched the community grow over the years.

The council have made great progress in developing the area in to a community, with leisure facilities, police station, library,shops, community centers, doctors etc over the years but the obvious facility that is lacking is the provision of co-Ed secondary education.

WBC have granted permission to developers over the years without making any inroads into adding educational facilities for the clearly obvious increase in population.

WBC have gladly taken the taxes from that increased population generating an increased revenue.

With the recent closure of Ryeish Green, more cost savings have been enjoyed in the reduction in overheads, salaries, insurance etc for that facility.

No doubt RBC will also enjoy an added revenue stream from selling off the land, no doubt for more development.

The Sibley Hall planned development is a prime case of taking the money from developers/ more taxes but giving nothing to community in the way of educational facilities in return.

It is time WBC, to realise your priorities. I would suggest the provision of co-educational secondary education for your voters/taxpayers should now be on the top of your list and I would strongly urged you to think about the consequences of another year going by when you choose, and it would be a choice, to ignore the overwhelming demands of your community.

An indecisive move at this stage would mean an clear inability to provide the community with the required services it needs and would be a huge failing in your duty of care and result in a vote of no confidence by many residents.

There are many reasons why us parents feel so strongly and it is a very emotive issue. I would like to take this opportunity to make a point regarding your delivery of this consultation on that rainy Wednesday evening. It saddens me to say that, as an Operations Director for a national firm, I was appaulled at the quality of delivery from the speakers and the innate ability for the council to provide suitable equipment to enable the forum to be as effective as it could be. Not one of the WBC speakers would be welcome at any of my business meetings or presentations. Professionalism is clearly not required element with the elect committee. You let yourselves down at an event that gave you an opportunity to put forward your proposals clearly and concisely. I am glad I attended. Before now I have felt a little disinterested in the mechanics of the council but after that display, I have a new founded interest...... If that is the standard of delivery you

make in all areas of decision making, you need to reassess your staffing competencies. I actually felt for the poor chap that was wheeled out to explain the maps - after seconds on the stage I mentioned to the person to my right that he was going to get ripped to shreds up there! And sure enough, his time was completely railroaded by a heckling crowd.

That aside, many arguments from the Park Ward fell at the meeting, councillors urging the RBC parents on were shown to ineffective in supporting flawed arguments and shown to be nothing other that publicity seekers to meet their own agenda.

The 'Green' councillor didn't even speak as it is obvious that the change in catchment actually produces a net benefit in carbon emmissions by more kids being able to walk to school. Let me point out that the distance to Bulmershe for many Park Ward children is less half that for the majority of Lower Earley residents currently excluded from the Maiden Erlegh catchment. Hence they would still be attending a 'local' school within walking distance.OK so they may have walk a few extra meters but nothing like the ridiculous situation we have at the moment with Lower Earley kids actually walking though the ME site to walk on to Bulmershe!

So the 'local' argument for Park Ward falls.

One poor chap even went for the compensation question regards his potential fall in house price!

I do hope that the council saw through this poor argument as just another ill advised investor - no doubt from an estate agent - even being in catchment still doesn't guarantee a place.

An underlying argument is quality of school. I was impressed with the Headmaster from Bulmershe who spoke well on behalf of his school. I would argue that maybe that school needs the Park Ward parents - they clearly feel strongly about the quality of their kids education, and rightly so - so an influx of a new demographic of pupils with such involved parents would most probably work as a real asset to Bulmershe. Who knows, it may even raise the profile, and standards achieved producing a net benefit to the whole area. RBC councillors can channel their energy into that cause and really add value for their constituents.

The alternatives to the South East are not really alternatives for many. Many parents would argue that education is not only about academic results, it is about learning life lessons and for many, a single sex education does not offer a fair representative environment of the world around us. Hence a single sex provision is not equal to a co-Ed. The added distance also produces negative consequences to the carbon emissions. Agreed, our children can cycle - across one of the county's busiest roundabouts and main roads servicing one of the busiest links to the M4. There has already been one death of a returning schoolchild along Lower Earley way - does it take some more to highlight the perils of that alternative route?

WBC I implore you - find the strength of character to change the catchment to include Lower Earley and complete the community you have done so much to build up.

I feel for Park Ward residents but there's is not your concern - they have a council of their own that should be providing resources - do not give away your resident's services to another council.

The only right decision by your taxpayers is a change.

No change will mean a lot of children turning up at your offices at the beginning of term refusing to attend the school you have allocated - year after year until you see sense.

Or maybe it is time for those parents with the appetite to seek 'Free' school status and resources.

Yours

LWise - Lower Earley

Recommend? Yes 0 No 0
AKUK
Unregistered User
Oct 3, 22:07
Report comment

Wise UK: Best and most reasoned input I have yet seen in this debate.

Recommend? Yes 0 No 0
Peter
Unregistered User
Oct 7, 22:57
Report comment

Response to WiseUK

Ryeish Green school was part of WBC and not RBC, so the monies would go to WBC instead.

School places are funded by central government not by local authorities and the money follows the child. WBC is not subsidising RBC by having Reading children at their schools.

Many children from Wokingham borough go to Bracknell Forest Schools and also to schools in Hampshire. Should they play second fiddle to children from those local authorities?

Why should the borough boundary play any part in this debate, it is simply not a relevant or valid argument. Distance from the school is the primary factor.

Maybe WiseUK's arguments and other statements do not look so good after all…..

Recommend? Yes 0 No 0
EarleyMum
Unregistered User
Oct 7, 23:41
Report comment

Hi WiseUK,

I was also at the meeting on that wet evening with many friends and neighbours from the Earley community on the University side of the Wilderness Road.

Interesting you think Reading Borough Council will benefit from the closure of Ryeish Green. As the school in question is in Wokingham Borough there is only one council to save money and gain from the monies from the land sale.

Regarding the arguments of Park Ward, you may not have noticed if you left before the end that all those questions we asked were noted and have not yet been answered.

By the way, the person complaining about house prices announced himself as someone from the triangular part of the Wokingham Borough consultation to the west of Elm Road that the consultation is seeking to remove.

Just out of interest, are those people at the tip of Lower Earley, who think they will gain from this change (sorry but there are too many people between them and the school), voting for those in variation 1 & 2 to be kept in because they’re Wokingham residents or do you want them to be kept out to make your chances better?

And once again, although it’s been said several times around this debate, the capital for school funding comes from central Government not from local councils and local taxation. Money council’s gain locally from developers should go into schools locally. So which school benefited from all the Lower Earley developer money? It certainly wasn’t Ryeish Green and Waingels was funded from a specific government grant, Holt could do with some TLC and Bulmershe’s buildings aren’t doing much better.

Anyway, I’m with you and your green agenda. Let’s get kids into local schools.

Recommend? Yes 0 No 0
Reading
Unregistered User
Oct 8, 13:43
Report comment

'Why should the borough boundary play any part in this debate, it is simply not a relevant or valid argument. Distance from the school is the primary factor.' You are right there Peter I have being saying that all along. The same proposals would have been made whether or not a boundary line was present. In essence, it is just two parts of Reading and an oversubscribed school in the middle. One half finds itself with a line of equal distance running through the middle of it to what can be regarded as another local school and the other is closest to only one of the schools. Unfortunately, it all looks logical and rationale to anyone independent from the outside. But, where would you cut Park in half to make it fair! Some parts of Park are really just too far away.

Recommend? Yes 0 No 0
Fairness
Unregistered User
Oct 9, 08:56
Report comment

If you agree that local children in Earley and Lower Earley should be able to attend their local school then please sign the petition at:

http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/yestochange

Report this comment

Recommend? Yes 0 No 0
Not us and them
Unregistered User
Oct 9, 14:21
Report comment

I sadly regret this whole mess. What ever happens in the next few months will leave bitter resentment on the side that loses out. There are a few (not all, I don't want to tar everyone with the same brush) who feel the other side should shut up and put up. I have to ask, if the shoe was on the other foot would you just go with the flow or would you fight for what you perceive is right.

We are all in this together fighting for what we believe is best for our own children and others from the other side should not berate us for doing that.

Reading parents feel as thought they have been left out of the decision making protest and denied the chance to choose what for many is their nearest local school. Lower Earley parents are fighting for much the same thing , to go to their local school and not have their children being bused all over the place.

A big part of the issue is the standard of Bulmershe compared to ME. When I moved here about 12 years ago, Maiden Erlegh had good reputation, but Bulmershe wasn't too far behind, with some parents actively choosing Bulmershe over ME. The big issue here is that WBC have allowed Bulmershe to slide to a point where many parents, given a choice, will choose ME over Bulmershe.

What all parents, both sides of the divide, should be pushing for is a big drive to improve Bulmershe school, so that it is a valid alternative to ME. When that happens, the pressure on ME will ease, giving those who want to go to ME more chance of going there. I'm sure that Reading and Lower Earley parents alike would complain far less. Unfortunately this isn't going to happen overnight, and I'm sure that parents who are in or will be in the Bulmershe catchment, regardless of whether they are from Reading or Wokingham will be concerned. Do you going trust WBC to improve a school, when its not really done much so far and if the changes go ahead as plan, will be predominately be Reading children. I for one certainly don't.

Recommend? Yes 0 No 0
Upset
Unregistered User
Oct 10, 16:51
Report comment

I live in the Holt/Forest part of Lower Earley, and when I bought my house I deliberately avoided the Bulmershe catchment area so that I did not have a problem with schools when my children reached secondary school. With these new proposals I would find myself loosing access to The Holt, (which was my prefered school for my two girls) and being put into Maiden Erlegh/Bulmershe catchment. Due to the radial distance from my house (just over a mile) I am likely not to get into ME on radial distance and therefore my daughter would end up at Bulmershe. My main concern about all this is the effect on her. If we stay Holt catchment she would get the bus with her friends to school, if we all got into ME then she would be able to walk to school with her friends. As we live one of the furthest roads out in our area if she ends up at Bulmershe she would have to walk the 2 miles on her own, as the rest of ther friends would get into ME or Forest. The proposals fail the 40+ children from the finges of Lower Earley who would not get into ME, it will isolate them from all their friends, and they are going to be spread over a 3+ mile radius.

I have another child at Primary school and work so would have no means of getting her to another school everyday.

I do not support these plans, and feel that people who are living in the Bulmershe catchment part of Lower Earley are the only people that gain from any of these proposals - and they bought their houses knowing they were going to have issues around secondary school catchments. They gain both educationally and financially while the rest of us loose out - how is that fair?

I find it hard to agree that the houses between the railway line and Wokingham road should be included in the new catchment area as my daughter would have to walk past them on her 2 mile trek to Bulmershe and they have always been Bulmershe catchment - they knew that when they moved in and they are the nearest to Bulmershe!

The catchment area should fit the school - this proposal fails the kids on the outskirts of Lower Earley in a big way - it will take away their community and friendships and isolate them - and it fails the parents who have deliberately bought houses in ME or Holt/Forest catchments only to discover their children could end up with Bulmershe after all!

Recommend? Yes 0 No 0
Sympathetic
Unregistered User
Oct 10, 20:06
Report comment

Dear Upset, It is acknowledged that the projected numbers and capacity for Maiden Erlegh are very tight. However, please note they are also looking for proposals that may come forward for amendments to the proposed shared DA. In my discussion and letters I have stated one possibility to ease this problem is to keep the Holt and Forest designated areas the same in Lower Earley. Please do support the change but make sure you include this suggestion in your reply.

Recommend? Yes 0 No 0
True Fairness
Unregistered User
Oct 11, 09:19
Report comment

If you disagree with these proposed changes please sign the online petition here:

http://www.gopetition.com/petition/38683/signatures.html

Recommend? Yes 0 No 0
Sarah
Unregistered User
Nov 1, 13:39
Report comment

Spare a thought for us in south/central Reading where the only school choice you have is John Madejski Academy!! Some choice!

Recommend? Yes 0 No 0

Return to the main index, get more from this section or browse our News archives.

Follow @rdgchronicle