Temporary buildings solution for primary school places shortage
Temporary classrooms could be put in up to eight central Bristol schools in an effort to resolve the primary places crisis.
More than 300 families in the city are still waiting to hear where their four-year-olds will go in September.
-
Temporary classrooms could be used to ease the primary places crisis
Now cabinet councillor for children Peter Hammond has revealed that further talks will be held this week about the possibility of putting on extra reception classes for September.
The council admits it could have avoided a lot of the anger and anxiety caused to parents if it had concluded some of these discussions earlier.
The schools being considered are Little Mead, Henleaze Infants, Hannah More, Millpond, Cabot, Sefton Park , St Barnabas and Glenfrome. However, it is not yet certain that classrooms will go to all of these schools.
Mr Hammond and officers answered a set of questions put to them by the Post following a torrent of concerns shared by parents since they received letters earlier this month telling them they must wait two more months for school place offers.
Mr Hammond said: "These are reasonable questions. If I were in the situation of these families, I would be asking the same things.
"Some of this should have been made clear as part of the process.
"I have been disturbed at how people feel. I can well understand their dismay at how they perceive what has happened. There is a clear commitment that we will make sure every parent has a place for their youngster in September.
"We are taking measures to provide temporary accommodation to meet some of the clear shortage of spaces in those areas of Bristol where this has been identified and it is probable that under the next stage of the admissions process a number of these families will end up with one of their preferred schools.
"We have got in place a number of measures to ameliorate any difficulties anybody has got. I have asked that I be kept up to date on the progress of this.
"In the slightly longer term, our Primary Review proposals are a strategic approach to these issues."
The scale of the problem came to light after the Post disclosed that Bristol City Council had received 4,247 on-time applications for primary places but had only been able to make 3,940 offers of places at the end of January. Many parents with three schools close to their homes were told none had room for their children.
The council responded to concerns by saying suggested temporary classrooms would be installed at some primaries but some children might have to use public buses or shared transport to get to school.
Some families affected have formed a campaign group called B PAC (Bristol Primary Admissions Crisis).
Liz Haydon-Turner, 35, from the group, whose eldest son Samuel did not get in to any of the three schools near the family's home in Brynland Avenue, Bishopston – Bishop Road Ashley Down or Sefton Park – welcomed the latest moves.
The solicitor said: "We are delighted that the council said they can put on temporary classrooms – but what a shame the demand could not have been foreseen and sorted out sooner. We hope this can be turned into a long term solution of primary school places where they are needed."
30 Comments
View all
by Sarah, Ashley Down
Sunday, March 01 2009, 8:08PM
“Hmmm... another BPAC member I presume.
Insulting and ill informed .....if the situation weren't so serious it would be quite amusing
It does show up the sheer ignorance of some BPAC members.
Sounds like you didn't complete that course in "How to win friends and influence people".
Does not really deserve a response.”
by sarah, bristol
Saturday, February 28 2009, 11:17PM
“What really makes me annoyed about the whole issue about children not being allocated any school places this year is the hypocrisy of some of the parents whose children attend Sefton Park school ¿ namely those who oppose the school being expanded.
These people who object to the expansion presumably choose the area because they wanted their children to go to a good school (just like the people whose children didn¿t get in), mostly they are people who were lucky enough to get their first child a place by the ¿skin of their teeth¿ because either they have the money to buy a house within a few hundred metres of the school, or they were very fortunate with the ¿as the crow flies¿ rule, or they lied on their application form¿they then have the audacity to object to other local children attending. They object to temporary classrooms at Sefton Park and propose the building of a new school on the Brunel site as some miraculous solution. Have they ever thought that the parents of the children who didn¿t get offered a place also maybe chose this area because there already existed a school they thought their child would attend ¿ not some unknown quantity of an entirely new school?
These parents should thank their lucky stars their child has got a place at a good school (despite living in some cases as far away as St Werburghs!) and shut up. Stop objecting to the expansion of your precious school and give a little thought to other people who weren¿t quite so lucky.”
by angry resident of bishopston - no school for 2009, bishopston
Saturday, February 28 2009, 11:16PM
“What really makes me annoyed about the whole issue about children not being allocated any school places this year is the hypocrisy of some of the parents whose children attend Sefton Park school ¿ namely those who oppose the school being expanded.
These people who object to the expansion presumably choose the area because they wanted their children to go to a good school (just like the people whose children didn¿t get in), mostly they are people who were lucky enough to get their first child a place by the ¿skin of their teeth¿ because either they have the money to buy a house within a few hundred metres of the school, or they were very fortunate with the ¿as the crow flies¿ rule, or they lied on their application form¿they then have the audacity to object to other local children attending. They object to temporary classrooms at Sefton Park and propose the building of a new school on the Brunel site as some miraculous solution. Have they ever thought that the parents of the children who didn¿t get offered a place also maybe chose this area because there already exists a school they thought their child would attend ¿ and not the unknown quantity of an entirely new school?
These parents should thank their lucky stars their child has got a place at a good school (despite living in some cases as far away as St Werburghs!) and shut up. Stop objecting to the expansion of your precious school and give a little thought to other people who weren¿t quite so lucky.”
by Teresa, Bishopston
Saturday, February 28 2009, 8:06PM
“To concerned and angry parent: I understand why you are feeling so angry but regarding the sibling rule, remember that every single family in the area is treated exactly the same: the first (or only) child cannot be considered under the sibling rule. Every family has to get a child in by distance or catchment once and once only. I think the sibling rule makes perfect sense.”
by Alex, Bristol
Monday, February 23 2009, 11:52PM
“-the siblings rule makes sense when you have to think about the problem of trying to drive round the city to get kids to different schools at the same dropoff and pickup times. It may be unfair, but it is workable.
I do send the child to a paying school; it is a different set of problems. Facilities are good, bills are about the same as nursery. But they aren't that representative of bristol, and they set the kids up with unrealistic expectations and an obsession with rugby. Which the other parents share. Compared to my inner london school where the only time we saw greenery was the annual farm-safety film they made us watch, and after-school entertainment was getting beaten up by your classmates, its very different.”
by Natalie, Bristol
Monday, February 23 2009, 10:25PM
“Jo & Angry worried Parent
It has been mentioned in council meetings that the sibling rule may stop in the future, whilst this may help some of us gain places now, how would we feel in 2 years or so when one of their siblings cannot get into the same school - nightmare scenario.
Another change may be scrapping areas of priority, instead there may be
1) a lottery (names picked from a hat for applicants), this would ensure all of us driving all over the City.
2) The other plan is just geographical distance around the whole school site, which may be more acceptable in some cases as some catchment areas dont have the school in the middle of the map - take Henleaze as an example.
This may all take 2 years to change if BCC decide.”
by Worried Parent, Bishopston
Monday, February 23 2009, 10:16PM
“Yes, we welcome extra temporary accomodation for the crisis in September..but... the same priorities for admission will be applied i.e. siblings then distance from school.
It also seems parents who have already accepted their 2nd or 3rd choice of schools, have been allowed to stay on the waiting list to gain their 1st choice, these parents can take priority if the portkabins are erected.
Us poor parents with no schools are still in the same situation for September - BCC this is a surely unfair.”
by Liz, Bristol
Monday, February 23 2009, 9:23PM
“my understanding is that if they scratch 'catchment areas' (AKA areas of first priority, or areas of prime responsbibility) then the 'allocation distance' around popular schools shrinks and shrinks as more people move into the area to be close to the school - as evidenced by the halving of the allocation distance for Ashley Down this year. As far as I'm aware it was to prevent this that the catchments for the popular N Bristol schools were introduced in the first place....but now it's felt that geography alone is at least more transparent. In the case of the north Bristol schools the problem of oversubcription is so bad that it's down to geography within the catchment area.
Jo - google for Bristol Primary Admissons Crisis and/or Bishopston Parents for Schools - they are Yahoo groups.”
by Jo, Bristol
Monday, February 23 2009, 8:53PM
“I would be interested but would not have a clue how to go about it. My daughter will probably not get a place at our local school because once siblings have been given priority; we live roughly 400 metres away. Friends who live 350 metres from the school did not get in this year, I assume this is because siblings got priority, then the admission authority worked outwards from the school, offering places to children living closest. Last year that distance was 725 metres, in one year, it has more than halved! What will it be like next year¿you can only get in if you live within 100 metres? It would be laughable if we were not talking about the future of our little ones. How can I get hold of you?”
by Concerned and angry parent, Bishopston
Monday, February 23 2009, 7:55PM
“I am very concerned that the sibling rule is actually an infringement of my child's human rights.
Essentially, my child has no siblings and lives within the catchment area of our local school. We are aware that children outside the catchment area, with siblings have been afforded priority.
To my simple way of thinking, this says that BCC attach greater value to children with brothers and sisters than to children without.
I am seriously considering taking this to the European Court of Human Rights and wonder whether any other parents feel the same way and would be prepared to consider a class action?”