Merton: dumbing-down Dundonald Primary School?

[page1]

1. Merton Council's consultation process regarding the proposed expansion of Dundonald Primary School(DPS) has now commenced and information can be obtained from their website or that of DPS. The Council has distributed a leaflet to residents for feedback and is due to hold a public meeting on Wednesday 8 June.

1. Disappointingly, the Conservatives, LibDems and Independents have been very quiet on the issue. The Labour Party has given out letters supporting the proposed expansion and, to his credit, Cllr Walker has had the courage to put his personal credibility on the line given his close involvement with the campaign. However, threatening parents/carers that they will have to take their children to school in Morden if the Council doesn't get its way seems a little extreme. Frankly, parents don't care how far they travel if their children can attend an outstanding state school.

1. It seems that the governors of DPS only agreed to an expansion programme on condition that the Council provided more space. The governors knew that this was impossible for the Council to achieve because of the existence of the restrictive covenant concerning the neighbouring park (see the petition on the Council website).

1. The proposal to double the size of DPS, starting with the temporary bulge class, has caused much concern to parents of pupils at the school as witnessed by DPS being forced to issue an explanatory letter and Q&A to try and quell those fears.

1. DPS is a popular school because it had an outstanding rating from Ofsted following the last inspection and it is the ideal size. It currently has around 250 pupils which is the average number for a primary school in England. If it doubles in size, parents fear that standards may slip. Merton has 40+ primary schools of which only 6 were rated outstanding and the majority of those were 1FE schools ie similar number of pupils to DPS.

1. Parents are also worried by the disruption to their children's education that will occur once construction begins on such a small and restricted site with all the attendant health and safety issues.

1. The school currently enjoys a harmonious relationship with the neighbouring community which might not survive if the Council's plans prevail.

1. Somewhat surprisingly, the Council's consultation process takes no account of ethnic diversity.

Please feel free to forward this to and/or discuss the contents with any parents of pupils at Dundonald Primary School who may have concerns about the Council's plans and say NO to the proposal.

PAGE - Parents AGainst Expansion

Hi piji

I've sent an email to the planning dept. supporting the scheme.

I was, however, alarmed by the volume of negative representations and the paltry number of those supporting the scheme.

Please, if you've commented here, take the time to do so to the planning dept. That's where it will really make a difference.

Oh and I couldn't help but reply to the Lib Dems, whose finger-pointing, fence-sitting and entirely non-constructive response really made me see red.

If political parties want to openly oppose such a scheme then they better make bloody sure they have a better, considered alternative to offer. They clearly didn't, and haven't... Poor show. Really poor show.

The 'Save Our Rec' brigade may be deeply unpleasant from where I'm standing, but they're pretty bloody successful. It's all a bit depressing, that threats intimidation and scaremongering are shown to be tactics that work, if you're prepared to stoop to that level.

db
xx

DLD, I think your position is an absolute disgrace and I hope you get plenty of visibility here so that the Dundonald Lib Dems are shown in their true light. You have lost my vote, and I expect many others, with your short sighted position.

You are quick to note the council's public space policy -but what about the education policy? Do you not care that the council is unable to provide local school places in Wimbledon? Do you think it is fair on parents who are denied the basic right to have their child educated locally?

You say expanding the school will increase traffic in the area. Do you realise that by opposing the expansion, you are effectively supporting the status quo, which is for local children who could easily WALK to Dundonald, who live 250 metres from the school, to be bussed 2 miles away in Mitcham for reception? Because this is what is happening at the moment. I'd say it is pretty obvious which is worse, traffic-wise. But I guess you don't really care about traffic jams in Mitcham, as long as the Fairlawn gang can jog in peace?

If Dundonald does not expand, what is the alternative for local families who cannot get access to local education? What are you proposing can be done to redress this situation now - i.e. September 2012-2013? I would quite like to know, as the council is unable to name me one single state school in Wimbledon where my children fit the admission criteria. I don't care whether this is the result of poor planning or who is to blame for it - I want a resolution so that my daughter can go to school next year. Pray tell where should I send her if Dundonald does not expand?

You are burying your head in the sand by pandering to the Save the Rec activists. I suggest you go back and "agonise" a bit longer about your position, as you have clearly failed to appreciate the fact that a vast number of your constituents want their children to have access to local education. Shame on you for playing petty political games on the back of four year olds.

Cross post DB! :)

See Peter Walker's letter to the Wimbledon Guardian editor today here

DLD10

Hi Wimbledon / Dundonald Liberal Democrats,

I voted for you.

Not just for the party but for you specifically - I live in the Dundonald area.

I've voted Lib Dem for quite a few years, because I've wanted to cast my vote somewhat to the left of New Labour, and because I want our society to be one in which we all take responsibility for looking out for one another.

I'm a socialist in a small way - not the kooky Socialist Worker type, but I just think that things like universal education are a good in our society.

In the case of the Dundonald school expansion, you're standing with the wealthy, selfish house-price NIMBYs, and against the education of our community's children.

"Some of these houses cost over a million pounds" is not a good reason to deny our community's children the good, local education which they deserve - regardless of the various fig-leaves which the "Save Our Rec" campaigners have been hiding behind.

What do you have to say to families like that of Bonita99 (see above) who have no school place within a few kms - and no good school plce at all?

Is it:

"Your children don't matter"

or

"You're not rich enough for your kids to deserve a good education"

or simply

"We don't care la-la-la-la fingers in ears not listening"

?

7% of 4-year-olds in Wimbledon do not have a school place in any of their 6 chosen schools.

Where's the social justice in that?

If you're going to support the interests of the self-centred rich against the interests of the wider community then it would be more honest of you to run as Tories - as least when you vote Tory, you know what you're getting.

I won't be voting for you again.

I wonder if how the Save the Rec campaign are feeling today, now that one of their main arguments has been shot to smithereens.

You know, the one about Dundonald only being an outstanding school because it is small and single entry (implicit in this is the fact that only people who live in £1m houses can get in)

Well, interestingly, the Ofsted report on Wimbledon Chase has just been released - yes, the 3 form entry, newly expanded school which serves a much wider ethnic and social mix than Dundonald.

The result? Outstanding in all areas.

Makes the "dumbing down" accusations look rather stupid, doesn't it?

Primafacie, designerbaby & smiffy21: I'm sorry you feel that way, but that's the way it is. We're a democratic organisation, and that's the decision reached by our local members and supporters.

Primafacie - you ask what's being done to "redress the situation now ie September 2012-2013". It's a good question, but backing the school expansion provides no redress for children in September 2012. Even if the expansion goes ahead, the planning application and building work will not likely be completed before then. Whether Dundonald Primary expands or not, your daughter is unfortunately not going to be able to go there this year. And sadly there are no short term solutions. The only solution is for a proper plan of school building to be put in place. I'm sorry that the decision we have taken as a group is one you disagree with (and you won't be the first or last to do so) and that our expression of that position has angered you. I'll be the first to admit that parents who want their children to attend that school are likely to disagree with us on this point.

designerbaby - I don't really understand how our response is "fence-sitting" given we've clearly taken a position. And whether people like it or not, the reason we're in the position we're in is because school land was sold off in the '80s, 90s and 2000s - and because since then no one has thought too much about how we're going to deal with rising birth rates. I'm also sorry that you're so annoyed we dared to come and explain our position here.

smiffy21 - You say "In the case of the Dundonald school expansion, you're standing with the wealthy, selfish house-price NIMBYs, and against the education of our community's children."

It is hugely clear that there need to be more school places in the borough. This is why almost half of the borough's primaries have now been expanded, and in due course why many of our secondary schools will be expanded.

I want to make two points:

(1) Let's not pretend that doubling the size of existing schools is an ideal solution - nor a good thing in its own right as Merton Council would have us think. The proposal for Dundonald suggests doubling the numbers of pupils and teachers but only increasing the floorspace by 35%. Arguably, one of the good things about Dundonald is its small, friendly nature. The new Dundonald would be a much bigger and more cramped place. You may feel that's a risk worth taking in order to get your child into the school, but you may not, and it's not an unreasonable position.

(2) It's not clear to me quite how opposition to the school expansion is about protecting house prices for "wealthy people". If anything, expansion would increase the value of homes of those who suddenly find themselves in the slightly expanded catchment area if expansion goes ahead.

So your plan is that we all hop in a time machine, go back to the '80s, '90s and 2000s, and prevent the sell-off of school land?

If that's not your plan then what is your plan?

I think the Tardis is fully booked.

Re "(2) It's not clear to me quite how opposition to the school expansion is about protecting house prices for "wealthy people". If anything, expansion would increase the value of homes of those who suddenly find themselves in the slightly expanded catchment area if expansion goes ahead."

Yes, expansion will increase property values for those homes which are inside the newly expanded catchment area. There will be a corresponding decrease in value for those homes which are right now inside the current, very small, catchment area, because those property-owners will no longer have a monopoly on school places at Dundonald.

Co-incidentally, those properties, which are highly desirable because they currently have exclusive access to Dundonald, are exactly where the "Save Our Rec" committee have collective investments of millions of pounds!

DLD - "sadly there are no short term solutions". Ah okay then, I will just quit my job and homeschool my children - problem solved.

I agree with you that it is sadly too late for September 2012, and that is a damn shame for parents within our community whose children have been denied access to local schools. As for myself, my daughter will be in reception in September 2013. There is a short term solution for us - the solution is to expand Dundonald school. I am not looking for an "ideal" solution which involves revisiting planning decisions made 20 years ago or more; I just want my children to go to school in Wimbledon, where I have lived for years. Is this so unreasonable?

I don't understand how you can in good conscience say that nothing should be done about this situation.

To fully investigate whether other schools could be expanded if Dundonald can't be (one can support expanding schools as a strategy, but disagree with particular planning applications); or to investigate whether permanent expansion of existing schools is necessary, whilst additional schools are built (deliberate emphasis).

Merton recently set out a list of 50 sites it wants to see developed in the next 10 years, and how it wanted to see them developed - for 45 of those sites it wanted more housing, didn't mention schools once. In my opinion, that's disgraceful.

Again, in my opinion, it's pretty relevant that some of the people who made the decisions to sell-off school land in the past are now the ones deciding what should happen, given that once again we're relying on their judgement.

@Primafacie - it is indeed a damn shame that there is a shortage of school places; and it's not at all unreasonable to want a local school, and I am sorry that your daughter has lost out this year - it's a terrible position to be in.

But does that mean that any criticism of the expansion of one particular school should be silenced? It isn't 'revisiting historical planning applications' to point out that the people who made those fantastic decisions about our schools in the past are still there making the decisions now, telling us that all they can do is expand existing schools.

Please don't get me wrong - and I am here to explain a group decision even if it's one I agree with - there is no one saying that nothing should be done, merely that this particular solution in relation to this particular school is not right.

"To fully investigate" isn't much of a concrete plan, is it?

Our community's children need actual school places, not "investigation", or even "full investigation".

I don't really care whether new places are provided by expansion of existing schools, or by the building of new schools.

Certainly one can object to a specific proposal without objecting in principle to the provision of additional school places.

There are 2 problems with that:

• NIMBY objections can and will be found to any building project. Dundonald NIMBYs are proposing that a new school be built on Wimbledon Common (see upthread). I find it unlikely that residents living near Wimbledon Common would agree with their implicit conclusion that open space is valuable only when it is in the Dundonald area.

• If you're against the Council's proposals, without having any real alternative proposals of your own (and I'm sorry but "investigation" is not a building proposal) then your claim to be in favour of school expansion in principle is rather undercut by your opposition to school expansion in practice.

DLD10:

No-one here is proposing that "any criticism of the expansion of one particular school should be silenced".

That's a straw man argument.

It's the "Save Our Rec" supporters who are trying to silence dissent by making threats to those who publicly support Dundonald school's expansion (again, see upthread).

In fact, I'm glad to see that the case for preservation of open space is being made. I think it's healthy for there to be an open and full discussion.

Piji - I think investigation of alternatives is a perfectly fine plan if it's not been done before and there are valid problems with the proposals being put forward - and as long as the examination of alternatives takes place in a focused way, rather than just flapping about. Rushing into decisions is exactly where and why things go wrong.

Further - as we have stated on our website, we think that any threats and intimidation are completely unacceptable, and hope that any such behaviour has been reported to the police.

Part of the reason we responded to the thread here was to encourage debate on the issue. We're certainly not right on all issues, by any stretch of imagination - as a group or as individuals, but the important thing is that as many people as possible have their say.

Well, I'm glad to see you here discussing it.

Re "investigation of alternatives is a perfectly fine plan if it's not been done before" - have you looked at the FOIA-released list of potential school sites drawn up by the council? (I would link to it but I can't find it on Google right now - but perhaps you've already seen it).

You're saying that the assessment-of-alternatives process, which that document shows, has not been done?

What should have been done that hasn't been done?

How would you do it - and get a new school built - in the remaining very short time?

Re "valid problems with the proposals being put forward" - there's never going to be a proposal with no problems - no traffic, no dust, no noise.

As a society we need to accept that the education of our children is worth a little inconvenience to the baby boomer 'me generation' who seem to be the ones primarily protesting against this proposal (as, I suspect, they would protest against any proposal which involves the slightest amount of inconvenience for them - see for example the respondent who protests that the school should not be extended because it would mean that they would have to change their jogging route).

DLD, yours is a typical political response. But while you are playing the blame game, there is an urgent situation which needs to be addressed, and you are not bringing any actual proposal for a solution to the table.

You may well think that this particular school expanding is not the right solution, and of course you are entitled to your views. But as an elected representative for the whole community, what do you have to offer families like mine? Beyond saying no to the expansion, where do you see additional school places available locally?

@Piji - I'm glad to be here to be doing so.

I will readily admit I don't have all the answers - and yes, I've seen the FOI list of potential school sites - the most interesting thing about that list was the difficulty people had getting hold of it, why was the Council so keen to stop people from looking at its decision-making process?

You're right that there is never going to be a proposal with no problems, but the ones you list are largely temporary problems to do with the building process - which is not why we object. We feel as a group that the problems with the permanent expansion of Dundonald are more permanent ones - the slippery slope in terms of loss of open space. The proposal is not in accordance with local planning rules, nor necessarily with land law, that protect open space. Given there's a need for around 5 more forms of entry for primary places in the next 3 years, and a huge need for secondary places over the next 5 - I think we could in a few years see further calls for parts of the Rec to be appropriated, especially with all the additional housing planned in the borough, currently with little thought for infrastructure like schools. The 2nd issue that our group decided on was that the school will become much more cramped - doubling the kids but only increasing the site by 35%. Not only does this make Dundonald a less attractive school, but it adds to the pressure to take more of the Rec in the future, to give the children more space.

I agree that the jogging objection a very poor one, which will be ignored by the Planning Application Committee I'm sure.

You mention building schools in a short time frame - but there is a third option for the short term besides permanent expansion of schools and new schools, which is temporary bulge years - Dundonald took one last year. Use of bulge years can give the time for longer term plans to build new schools to be put in place. Or there may be other primaries that wish to expand (I note that Dundonald parents were split 50-50 in the recent consultation).

@Primafacie I'm sorry you don't feel my answers have been good enough. I should point out first, that I'm not an elected representative, but a volunteer rep from a volunteer group (Dundonald has Conservative councillors, with the Lib Dems in 2nd place). What I hope we offer is a recognition that this is a hugely complicated issue, and that it's only going to get worse unless changes are made now to the overall strategy that the Council takes - mainly on the building of houses without adequate planning on schools and GPs etc, and that unfortunately does require planning and investigation of alternatives. In the short term, the Council should be investigating and implementing appropriate temporary or permanent expansion of other schools if places are needed in a particular area, whilst it sorts out a programme of school building.

I also hope I've shown an openness to come here and speak about it, despite knowing our position will be unpopular.

I'm glad you've seen that document (sorry I can't link to it right now).

So sorry to repeat myself but you seem to have ignored me:

• What should be done (in the "full investigation" that you advocate) which hasn't been done already?

• How would you do it - and get a new school built - in the remaining very short time? Criticism of past councils, while it passes the time, doesn't get schools built.

I'm not convinced by the "slippery slope" argument, given that the current proposal doesn't sacrifice any open space at all. The school will use the MUGA during school hours, yes, but it does that now. So no change there then.

Frankly I'd be willing to sacrifice some open space for education - do we really need 2 cricket pitches and not enough school places? but that's not what the council's proposing.

(On the issue that whether the redeveloped school will be big enough - I'm happy to trust the professional opinion of the headteacher, Ms Duffy, that it will be).

(And on bulge years - Pelham is taking a bulge year this September, and yet families like Bonita99's still have no school place - so that's clearly not solving the problem. There's a limit to how many children you can cram into a school before building work is needed).

The document you suggest is an investigation of new sites IIRC, not of alternative schools to expand permanently or temporarily, which is what I'm suggesting as the short term response (sorry to repeat myself - if this wasn't clear from the original answer above, which was intended to respond to your point), whilst longer term plans are put in place. On the subject of new sites, despite the initial investigation released under FOI, the Council has now accepted it needs to build at least one new primary, and is responding to its own consultation to say so - so even Merton thinks there are potential sites.

The Council's planning application explicitly sets out that some of the Rec will be built on (and I'm not sure the current tennis courts are inaccessible to the public during school hours), but the slippery slope argument is actually about the protection of the open space, and the arguments one thinks trump it. Once it's been done once, much easier to do again, especially if we're talking about giving kids in a cramped school more space.

There's a minimum size for the floorspace per pupil; Dundonald will veer towards that minimum. If you think that's a reasonable risk, that's entirely reasonable.

Apologies, I think I've found (at least part of) that list, and it was both new sites for schools and potential existing schools to expand - there were a number of shortlisted options.

So what, then - that hasn't been done already - would the "full investigation" which you advocate, consist of?

If you're saying more investigation into the temporary expansion of existing schools - bulge years - it's difficult to think of a school in the Dundonald area which hasn't already had either permanant or temporary expansion, except for the church schools. Merton Park I think. I'm not sure that single addition, on it's own, would be enough.

As far as open space is concerned, my understanding is that the new building will have about the same footprint as the old pavilion, which will be demolished once the new building is built. So no loss overall, except arguably the MUGA, where we get into issues of which hours it's available to which people - there's no reason why children shouldn't be allowed to use it during certain hours, that I can see. It's not adults-only. Maybe adults could get priority outside of school hours, to even things up.

As far as the "slippery slope" is concerned, there's two processes to consider: the Lands Tribunal and the planning process. In neither of those would approval of the current scheme set a precedent for future schemes (IIUC).

IIUC, Merton Council doesn't feel additional bulge years are needed for 2012/13, so that is the first thing to be looked at again in the light of the school places offers. Around 5 additional forms of entry are needed in the next 3(?) years on current projections, and a number of sites were scored. It would be entirely possible to go back to those sites and re-consider (indeed, the decision on those sites was not at all that they were unsuitable, nor that Dundonald was necessarily the best). There is also the question why this process wasn't revealed to councillors at the time the decision was being taken.

Contrary to your view, both the Lands Tribunal decision and the planning process would set a precedent on building on public space (and the old pavillion is public, the new building would be a school building, with limited public access).

I suspect we will not convince each other our point of view is correct, but I have tried to answer your questions as best I can.

I think Siobahn Benita was planning to insist on a non-expansion rule for London schools, with the idea that more, smaller schools should be built rather than the size of schools increased.

But we won't get that now cos nobody voted for her!