AIBU to think this particular Free School is a bad idea?

[nlondondad]

This posting will be of interest to anyone in London worried that there may not be any primary place for their child because it involves the expenditure of public money to set up a Free School in an area where it is not needed, thereby diverting money which could be used to set up a school where it is needed.

It will be of particual interest to anyone with a child in an Islington School as the proposed Free School will result in a reduction of 3 million pounds in the capital budget for islington schools. Puzzled?

read on......

Whitehall Park School is a proposed Free School for the London Borough of Islington. It was announced in June 2013.The proposers are a for-profit company, Bellevue Ltd who run a number of fee paying schools, both in the UK and Switzerland. The main shareholders of Bellevue are a hedge fund based in Zurich. They have stated that their preferred site is the old Ashmount Primary School site. This site is vacant because Ashmount School has moved a short distance to a new building, on a new site. Bellevue have asked that the vacant site and building be obtained for them by the Minister; the Minister has power under the Academies act to appropriate it without paying any compensation to Islington Council.

Islington wanted to use the site for social housing, as the particular area is well supplied with school places with the capacity for more if required in existing schools. They could expect to get a bit over three million pounds from a Housing Association for the site – money required for repairs to Islington Schools.

So if the Free School goes ahead on this basis there will be no three million for Islington schools for repairs, no extra social housing to relieve overcrowding, and the loss of other housing related Government grants some of which would be spent on education.

It now seems that a consultation is being held about this by Bellevue except they have not told anyone about it. The only mention of it is on their website, but not on the home page but several clicks in, under a button labelled "consultation" which before pointed to a brief note about a previous consultation saying it was over...

This is the announcement: I am not clear when it was actually made.

"Consultation

Bellevue Place Education Trust (BPET) is entering into an additional period of consultation relating to the site of the proposed Whitehall Park School. The consultation period is open now and will run until 12 noon on Tuesday 21st January 2014.

Following discussions with the Department for Education and the Education Funding Agency, BPET is now able to name the preferred site of the school as the site of the former Ashmount Primary School at Ashmount Road, Islington N19 3BH.

The Trust welcomes any comments in respect of the plan to locate the proposed school on this site. To participate in the consultation, please email any comments to [email protected] Specifically, we would like your answer to the following questions:

Do you think the proposed Whitehall Park School should open on the site of the former Ashmount School at Ashmount Road, Islington N19 3BH
Please explain your reasons for your answer to question 1
Please give any further comments that you would like to be considered in our consultation
All comments must be received by 12 noon on 21st January 2014"

My own views on this are well known, I shall respond by opposing it. By posting it here I am giving you the opportunity to express your own opinion, for or against. An opportunity Bellevue seem to wish to limit....

@Justgettingonwithit

I think you are still not getting the point.

As this is mumsnet, people post under nicknames. You post under a nickname. I have no way of knowing who you are, or where you live etc.
Just as I have no way of knowing what was in the two messages you have chosen to withdraw.

In the same way you have no way of knowing who I am. (Its complicated in this case because you have made statements about who you THINK I am, which have shown that you are mistaken)

In that context arguing that someone's arguments ought not to be listened to because they have, in your view, an "undeclared interest" misses the point. People on Mumsnet dont say who they are, so we have no idea what their interests are. For all I know you might be an employee of Bellevue's marketing agency!

brandenvy.co.uk/bellevue-place-education-trust-extends-their-relationship-with-brand-envy/

And if you were, would that make a difference on Mumsnet?

The messages withdrawn were an accidental post supposed to be made to MNHQ and accidently posted here, (as I've said before I'm very ill) and the one after it making it very clear that wasn’t meant to be posted, as I sought to have MN remove the accidental post above it. You’re welcome to seek conformation from MNHQ.

Apparently, it's yourself IMO choosing not to get the point, and trying to make my objections to your IMO misleading OP all about something else. I accept that I have given you the ammo for that.

I have not, and do not, argue “that someone's arguments ought not to be listened to because they have, in your view, an "undeclared interest". “

As frequently I’m defending what you claim I’ve said, not what I have.

It’s a good tactic and why right at the beginning, I said I didn’t wish to debate with you, because that’s my past experience of what happens with you and why it’s pointless for people like me to try.

What I have stated: not argued: is there’s a much bigger agenda and story than the one claimed in your OP.

IMO the OP (content) is misleading, if it wasn’t misleading and sought the same end result, then who was making it, wouldn’t matter.
When somethings misleading then it may do.

If you had either been straightforward, or declared your interest, people would be able to make more informed decisions.

They might well come out in agreement with what you seek, my desire was for truth and honesty about what was going on, whatever the outcome.

Yes I could be someone who set up a posting account years ago and has posted as a an ordinary poster for years but turns out to be a skilled worker for something else, but would suspect any company who’s business was selling PR image manipulation to other businesses, would employ someone with your sort of 'skills', not my lack of them.

FWIW if I had reason to believe a busness was on here acting as an ordinary poster manipulating opinion over a local issue that mattered deeply to people who felt they where being manipulated, I'd challenge them too, regardless of whose side they fell on, because yes, I believe it does make a difference on Mumsnet, and that it's wrong to misuse parents on a parenting forum like that.
I may not be good at all sorts of things, but I know right from wrong.

Well we are not getting very far but I am genuinely curious regarding your remark:

" My past experience of what happens with you"

What past experience are you referring to? I am not aware of ever having debated with you before.

regarding

My OP being "misleading", you need to say in what respects it is misleading if your argument is to have force, rather than just saying so.

You may not be aware of 'debating' with me previously, but I certainly am of doing so with you and what happens.

I have said previously on the thread why it's IMO misleading, I'm not going to spell it back out. People including you, may read why IMO it's misleading or not, as they choose.

I'm not seeking to get anywhere with you, it's you who keeps at it, and IMO trying to make it a personal argument at this point.

I really do think we are back to the mistaken identity problem, where you think I am someone I am not.

I have just checked by searching for all the discussions you have posted to over the last year, easy to do on Mumsnet, while you have been pretty active, and posted to a lot of threads, in the last year at least, you and I have never been on the same thread, other than this one. I should say that I always post as nlondondad. (I usually post in education or primary ed.) I could always go further back but there doesnt seem to be any point, you really seem to be confusing me with someone else.

Islington Council have just issued a press release.

"From: "Chris Roe"
Date: 30 January 2014 10:19:26 GMT
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: New housing proposal for former Ashmount School site - Islington Council News Release
Reply-To: [email protected]

Islington Council PR 5191 30/01/2014 [For Immediate Release]

New housing proposal for former Ashmount School site

Badly-needed affordable housing would be built on the site of the former Ashmount School under a new proposal from Islington Council.

The site in Archway, N19, closed in December 2012 when pupils moved to a modern school on a new site at nearby Crouch Hill Park.

Islington Council wants to use the land, no longer needed by the council for educational purposes, to build much-needed affordable homes.

But the Secretary of State for Education has told the council he proposes to establish a new free primary school, Whitehall Park School, at the site.

The council argues the free primary school is not needed as there is already plenty of good provision for local Islington children, so the free school is poor value for money for the taxpayer. Also the land is badly needed for local homes.

Now a report to the council's Executive proposes that half of the site is used for the new free school, and half to provide affordable homes.

The report also sets out a proposal to establish the Bridge Integrated Learning Space, a mixed special school for pupils aged 7-19, in a new building at the council's Dowrey Street site. The new building would also house the New River College Primary PRU.

Cllr Joe Caluori, Islington Council's executive member for children and families, said: "We are still firmly opposed to a free school on the old Ashmount site.

"We have shown we have plenty of planned primary school places in our schools, and that parents can already expect a first-rate education in Islington for their children.

"However, the Department for Education seem determined to proceed with a free school which is not needed, and it's our responsibility to make sure families in the borough get the maximum benefit from the site.

"That's why we are bringing a report to our Executive that sets out a plan for the future of the old Ashmount site, and also the Bridge Integrated Learning Space and our Pupil Referral Unit at Dowrey Street.

"Essentially we are proposing to split the Ashmount site in half, with half the site retained for approximately 50 affordable homes.

"This split would provide the free school with enough outside space to meet national guidance and would be comparable to other similar-sized schools in the borough, while also allowing us to build badly-needed affordable family homes.

"This whole process has been chaotic and opaque so we have decided to set out a clear position. The ball is now in the DfE's court."

The report will be considered by Islington Council's Executive on Thursday, February 6.

ENDS

For further information please contact:
Chris Roe, Senior Media Officer
Tel: 020 7527 8751
Mob/out of hours: 07769 163303
Email: [email protected]
Follow us on Twitter @IslingtonBC and @IslingtonLife

[#RL-5191:635266739666881250#]"

press coverage in the Standard tonight:

www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/the-middleclass-parents-dream-school-and-a-battle-for-an-asbestosriddled-site-9149092.html

Anyone interested in the future of this school, if indeed it HAS a future should have a look at this posting on the Local Schools Network site:

www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2014/03/when-is-a-more-than-half-empty-school-an-oversubscribed-school-when-it-is-the-whitehall-park-school-islington-this-autumn/

On 6 February the Islington Gazette reported:

A DfE spokesperson said: “Whitehall Park Free School is being set up in response to significant local demand – and the school’s reception year is oversubscribed for September 2014.

“Free schools, such as Whitehall Park, are popular with parents – they provide more choice and freedom and ensure children have access to the high quality education they deserve.”

On the 24 February a long article appeared in the Evening Standard. (It is worth reading in full.)

www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/the-middleclass-parents-dream-school-and-a-battle-for-an-asbestosriddled-site-9149092.html

In it Alison Roberts wrote:

“Tom Legge, lead sponsor of Whitehall Park…… says that it (the school) has had “many more applications than we have places available” for next September’s first cohort of two forms, although he won’t give precise numbers.”

Earlier, before the closing date for applications, a spokesman for the new school at a public meeting, referred to “overwhelming demand” and applications “flooding in” to “a surprising extent”.

However, both Bellevue and the DfE preferred, it seemed, not to say how MANY applications there had been.

The “flood of applications”, “overwhelming demand”,“many more applications than we have places available”, “oversubscription” and “through the roof” amounted to….

Seventy two applications for fifty six places.
(Source: Freedom of information enquiry to DfE)

Lower than the applications received last year by 40 out of 45 Islington Schools, and the five with fewer applications than Whitehall Park all had vacant places – and for smaller planned intakes.

The statements by Bellevue and the DfE are misleading. In fact the viability of this project for lack of demand is now in question.