Date: 18 November 2008 12:59:13 GMT
  To: Lee.Gallagher@bristol.gov.uk
  Subject: Sefton Park School Expansion & Consultation Process


  Hello Lee Gallagher

  Childrens' Services Scrutiny Meeting Monday 24th November 2008

  I have the following questions which I would please like you to 
  take to the meeting:

  1. As a parent who is concerned for all of our children, not 
  just those at Sefton Park, how fully has the local demographic 
  of the area been researched. I.e: extensive new building around 
  the Brunel site area will bring young professionals who over 
  the next few years will have primary school age children. 
  Young families continue to move in to this popular area.  There 
  is no point extending Sefton Park to unacceptable concentration 
  - thus potentially harming this exceptional school - if it 
  still creates insufficient places. How have the calculations 
  included not just current demand for places but future demands?

  2. How does the argument that it's okay to include off-site 
  facilities (i.e. playing fields up the road), in the 
  calculation about how much space children need, comply with 
  national guildelines?  Do any of the members of the meeting 
  genuinely believe that a green space removed from the school is 
  compensation for unacceptable lack of space at play-time, a 
  lack of space that is so openly admitted by the architect that 
  s/he has designed playspace on a caged roof.

  3. We have a poor reputation for education in Bristol.  What is 
  the justification for taking a school that is not only NOT 
  struggling, but is even exceptional, and putting it in 
  jeopardy, when there are other alternatives.

  4. Do you consider that there has been adequate consultation 
  about the Sefton Park Expansion, because I don't? I was made 
  aware by the parents' group, not by the LEA

  5. Why have plans for building a new school on the Brunel site 
  been abandoned?  If it is believed to be acceptable to squeeze 
  so many children into Sefton Park, why is it not considered 
  acceptable to squeeze them into a new purpose-built building, 
  with playing fields, up the road.  Has it been properly 
  considered that a new building of single form entry on the 
  Brunel site could be later expanded to two-form entry as demand 
  for places grows?

  6. Has it been properly considered that this new school could 
  be set-up and run by a management team from Sefton Park if you 
  consider the expertise of this school so special?

  7. There is a rumour that the Cricket Ground want the Brunel 
  site for expansion of their own facilities, i.e. Car Park.  Has 
  it been considered that their need for a carpark could be 
  incorporated into plans?  Schools don't need parking at 
  weekends. Could a new school benefit from proximity to the 
  cricket club. (Space traded for training perhaps? specialist 
  school perhaps?)

  8. It is very hard to see this process as anything other than a 
  cost-cutting one.  The argument against parental objection is 
  that objectors are in the minority.  Surely anyone and everyone 
  concerned with (all) our children would object to these plans 
  on ANY basis other than financial. Is there any educational 
  advantage for this proposal? (larger schools attract better 
  teachers won't wash, Sefton Park attracts great teachers 
  because it's a great school, better facilities would be an 
  argument but none are offered).  Is the ONLY benefit financial?

  9. How are financial concerns justifiable in light of 1. above?

  I look forward to the meeting's reply.

  With many thanks for your kind attention (as my children are 
  left, or nearly left, this is NOT a plea of self-interest)

  [Name Supplied]

  parent and ex-parent, and generally concerned for the future of 
  (all) Bristol's schools







------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  This email was independently scanned for viruses by McAfee anti-virus software and none were found 




=