“You're right, there's little point in continuing in this vein. My energies are better spent figuring out where and how my child will be educated from September.

I did not comment earlier on the points you have reiterated in your latest post but would say:

1) I have not personally posted anything derogatory about Sefton Park School, its parents, children or governors.

2) I understand your concern on behalf of children who are already at your school, but feel that it is not unreasonable for others to expect the options to be fully explored and explained, anywhere across the city. 300 families cannot simply be disregarded and it cannot be right that the only answer is 'everywhere's full'.

Regarding your final question about the other possibilities I am exploring, since you ask they include:

- understanding and testing public transportation options between home & under-subscribed schools across the city to see what issues arise. Understanding what impact they would have on my journey to work.

- examining the OFSTED data on under-subscribed schools to assess whether I would want my child to go there

- writing to politicians at Local and National level, seeking short & long term solutions through increased provision of capacity.

- talking to other parents in a similar position to find out whether any viable alternative options exist across the city and whether we could collaborate on e.g. transport.

- looking at the possibilities of moving house

- holding an e-bay fire sale of family artefacts to create a fallback fund in case of need

- looking at changing my employment contract to accommodate additional 'out of area' travel to school before heading for work

- considering deferring my child's start by a term to establish whether places come up in any of my preferred schools

- I shall also take my child to the swings now & again, assuming they're still available to us

Yours DC”

“Dale

I really wonder if there is any point at all in continuing here. You completely ignore the concerns about overcrowding and do not appear to be interested in the school. Temperatures were raised by the earlier post calling parents opposed to the expansion of Sefton Park ¿hypocrites¿, telling them to ¿shut up ¿ and to ¿stop objecting to the expansion of your precious school¿ and generally ranting on.

You seem to have ignored the salient points in my last post:

¿The size of the school and the space issues are incredibly important factors in the future success of the school. It would be irresponsible not to have a limit on the number of children who attend. It would be irresponsible to expand the school to the extent that outside play space is non-existent. It is irresponsible for your associates to aggressively demand these changes without taking into consideration the views of parents who already have children at the school and of the Governors who have the best interests of the children at heart.¿

I presume you are not interested in this issue as you have not commented on it.

¿I¿m sure Sefton Park will take an extra temporary class again this September, as it has done in the past, in an effort to help with the situation. And I¿m equally sure that this will not be openly appreciated by the vast majority of BPAC members. The school will still be slated as protectionist when its supporters are looking after the well-being of the children there.¿

I¿m sure that you realise extra classes are very likely to be pushed on the school whether they like it or not.

You say that you are examining other possibilities, rather than extra classes at Sefton Park. What are they?”

“Thank you Sarah.

I have no intention to engage in a slanging match. However, I was merely playing back to you the 'selfish & irresponsible' remark you made in an earlier post.

As for 'venom' perhaps you should review the tone of some of your earlier remarks and think about how they come across?

For the record, in response to some of your points:

'Perhaps YOU should examine other possibilities rather than being so intransigent'

IN COMMON WITH MANY FAMILIES IN BRISTOL, WHO HAVE BEEN DENIED PLACES AT ANY PRIMARY SCHOOL, BELIEVE ME, WE ARE DOING JUST THAT.

'Your supporters seem hell bent on getting their children into Sefton Park rather than just into a nearby school.'

i DO NOT HAVE SUPPORTERS. I HAVE NOT EVEN APPLIED FOR MY CHILD TO GO TO SEFTON PARK; THE ISSUE FACING MANY FAMILIES LOCALLY IS THAT NO PLACE IS AVAILABLE TO MEET ANY STATED PREFERENCE. THERE HAS TO BE A PLAN, OTHER THAN EXPECTING THIS YEARS PARENTS TO CRISS CROSS BRISTOL TWICE A DAY WITH THE RESULTANT NEGATIVE IMPACT ON CHILDREN'S HEALTH AND WELLBEING, THAT THE WIDER COMMUNITY CAN LIVE WITH. I AM SURE YOU WILL FIND MANY PARENTS SUPPORTIVE OF THE IDEA OF BUILDING A NEW SCHOOL/S; HOWEVER, THIS WILL NOT BE ACCOMPLISHED BY SEPTEMBER, SO WHAT ON EARTH ARE WE SUPPOSED TO DO?

If people have moved into the area with a view to attending Sefton Park then it is sheer bad luck that so many have done so all at the same time because there is simply not room to accommodate them all.

THIS ISN'T JUST ABOUT SEFTON PARK; MANY PEOPLE I KNOW ARE WELL ESTABLISHED IN AREAS WEST OF THE GLOS RD, SOME LIVING THERE FOR 10 YEARS PLUS, WHO HAVE NO SCHOOL PLACE THIS SEPTEMBER.

DC”

“Hi Dale

You¿re correct, it isn¿t my job. I find it astonishing that you can intimate that parents at Sefton Park are in some way selfish in their efforts to support their school and children. Perhaps YOU should examine other possibilities rather than being so intransigent and repeating the same tired old line time and time again. In an effort to be helpful I have already said that, for the long term, I believe the obvious solution is to build the new school at Brunel. Why do you not support this idea when it would obviously address the shortfall in school places and not negatively impact Sefton Park? Your supporters seem hell bent on getting their children into Sefton Park rather than just into a nearby school.

The parents at Sefton Park should be applauded for supporting their school and children. The size of the school and the space issues are incredibly important factors in the future success of the school. It would be irresponsible not to have a limit on the number of children who attend. It would be irresponsible to expand the school to the extent that outside play space is non-exsistent. It is irresponsible for your associates to aggressively demand these changes without taking into consideration the views of parents who already have children at the school and of the Governors who have the best interests of the children at heart.

There are hardly any comments here that even consider the school as it stands. I call that selfish. If people have moved into the area with a view to attending Sefton Park then it is sheer bad luck that so many have done so all at the same time because there is simply not room to accommodate them all. I¿m sure Sefton Park will take an extra temporary class again this September, as it has done in the past, in an effort to help with the situation. And I¿m equally sure that this will not be openly appreciated by the vast majority of BPAC members. The school will still be slated as protectionist when it¿s supporters are looking after the well-being of the children there. And I¿m sure that, if the new school is not built at Brunel, BPAC members who do attend this extra class will oppose further expansion next year. If they do they will be hypocritical, if they don¿t they will be irresponsible.

I would have thought that you should direct your venom at the council members who so spectacularly failed this community by bowing to the pressure of the elite members of the Cricket Club and delaying construction of the new school.”

“My understanding is that BPAC is trying to work for a constructive solution to this problem, sorry to see it being slagged here.

Re Sefton Park: my understanding is that the Labour admin wanted to expand it and force another classroom on this year which would have been awful but apparently the builders, Skanska (?) said they could change their requirements on site to accommodate the temporary classroom although this would have lead to the loss of a whole outdoor area (and things are already crowded to say the least). On the basis that the outgoing year 6 are a 'bubble' year of 90 the school could technically take in the extra 30 this year (I know there are differing space requirements for Yr6 and reception kids) . Now the Lib Dems - who are anti expansion - are in control perhaps the building won't go ahead, the school will cope with an extra class for the next year or two while a new school is built.

We need to hear from Campion and the Lib Dems at BCC as to what their plans are now for Sefton Park and for the solution to the school places crisis in the short term.

For all the debate on here about Sefton Park it needs to be remembered that there are 300 families across the city with no school place, not just those of us around the Bishopston/Ashley Down area. I wonder what the parents at Little Mead or Glenfrome think about extra classes being put on at their schools.”

“Sarah

You sound more 'fired up' than most.

I appreciate its not necessarily your job, but since you clearly have issues about capacity at your local school, what solution would you propose for the 90 or so families who cannot get places at Sefton Park, Ashley Down, Bishop Road, Westbury Park, Henleaze, Colstons, etc, etc? Where exactly should they go? If you suggest schools out of this area, then please examine your own attitude - would you be prepared to bus your children around if you were in the position of parents who have no places for their children now? Or are you selfish and irresponsible yourself?

I would like to see a constructive plan to achieve local education for our children in September. Anything less is unacceptable.”

“If the Sefton Park expansion went ahead, extra temporary accommodation could not go up, because the existing temporary accommodation would have to be moved from the building site area and placed on one of the playgrounds, if I recall correctly. That is why only 60 places were offered this year at Sefton Park. An extra 30 places can only be offered if the expansion does not go ahead.”

“just one final comment to 'sarah, ashley down' before I stop this debate with you;

If 'It¿s selfish and irresponsible to condemn the children there to 2 years major building works while there could be a perfectly suitable NEW school just up the road.', then presumably a NEW school up the road would also take 2 years to build and where would the children who haven¿t got any place go in the meantime?

At least if Sefton Park was expanded rather than a new school built then temporary accommodation could go up while it was being done (as it has in the past).

Oh and by the way, I'm not trying to desperately get my child into Sefton Park. Far from it. Ironically, I wouldn't even want my child to go there and nor have I applied for a place there. I expressed my views because I am sick of the hypocrisy of the parents who oppose the expansion as I said in my original post.”

“To: no school place 2009, bristol, bishopston.

Dear me. You are fired up. Sounds like you¿ve explored every avenue to squeeze your child into Sefton Park. And of course, your child deserves the chance over and above every other child. If the rules say otherwise ¿ well the rules MUST be wrong then.

As to expanding Sefton Park ¿ it really does sound as though you don¿t care how your child is educated at all. Of course expansion is feasible ¿ Atkins weren¿t commissioned to examine the effects it would have on the kids ¿ just whether they could fit the buildings in. It¿s selfish and irresponsible to condemn the children there to 2 years major building works while there could be a perfectly suitable NEW school just up the road.

You¿re not a member of the cricket club are you??”

“To sarah of 'ashley down' - no I'm not a member of any group, nor am I ill informed. I have been very well aware of this issue since 2006.

It sounds like my post touched a bit of a raw nerve with you.

I do have many solutions to this problem;

1) A random allocation of a place to the three nearest schools to you. This would stop the disproportionate rise in house prices near schools such as Sefton Park and many other issues such as the renting of temporary homes in order to secure a place and other practices that go on.

2) The proposal that when people move, they also move their children¿s schools thereby keeping the schools for children who live within the community.

3) Changing the 'as the crow flies' rule where you have people who live e.g a five minute walk from a school not getting a place and others living 20 minutes walk away getting a place. The parents at Sefton Park feel there is a traffic problem already and this will increase if the school expands. This is partly because some of the parents don't live locally and therefore drive to the school!

3) Looking at ways to expand already good/outstanding schools rather than/as well as building new ones.

Sefton Park has been found to be 'feasible' for expansion by the Atkins report. If this means a playground on the roof, as bizarre as this may sound, this is what inner London schools do where oversubscription is a problem. I know that this is not inner London but it is an area of over subscription to good schools and lack of space is going to be a down side to that. The school has not been found to be unsafe for expansion or unfeasible.

Of course everyone wants the best for their kids but doesn¿t it seem a little bit selfish to say the least to be campaigning against the expansion of a local school when many children haven¿t been offered a school place at all?”