Been offered brand new free school or last choice

[Lazymama2]

We're not sure what to do as have been offered a place at a brand new school which is with walking distance but has not been 'fitted out' yet (buildings are there). There is very little concrete info on term dates, start and finish times, curriculum and obviously no past performance on which to base a decision. Also no older kids to look up to. Other school is our last choice and has improved from satisfactory to good. DH does not want Dd to go to this school and would prefer private. I, on the other hand, quite like idea of a brand new school.

Thoughts/ideas anyone?

PS please dont turn this into a debate of state vs. private as I believe every parent does what is best for thier child/family circumstances and im not for/against one or the other.

As commented on above, I too would be delighted to chat to parents applying for Whitehall Park School for 2015. The school is fantastic. We got offered no school by Islington council and could not have hoped for a better place for our child. The teachers are so impressive. The head teacher is passionate and caring. Our child is receiving the best possible education and care and is extremely happy. And the community is DELIGHTED to have a local school again. I know for certain that many of us got offered schools very far away that were impossible to get to without giving up work (!!); some were offered nothing or even told to home school our children; and some were offered religious schools even though they had outlined that they were not religious. Yes the class sizes are not yet full but that is due to the fact that there is no building yet! Look at the high number of us who have taken a leap of faith and are delighted we did. Those personal experiences speak a hundred times louder than any stats and data. I really wish people would just let this school grow and blossom and if you cannot see the vision and are not willing to visit and see for yourself why we are all so happy then fine, it's not for you and please look elsewhere.

But can any of these enthusiastic supporters of Whitehall Park School explain what has happened about the new building?

You see the press story just above which confirms that Whitehall Park School is seriously undersubscribed also now says that the new building will not be ready until autumn 2017. Whereas we were being promised by Whitehall Park School that the children would be in portocabins for a year, with a new building next autumn. And there is no room for more portocabins, which are in any case temporary structures for a year only, and only have temporary planning permission to boot. So if there is no new building next autumn where do the second year's intake go?

Mind you the promise that there would be a new building in 2015 was made at the same time as Whitehall Park School was claiming to be "overwhelmed by applications" and "very oversubscribed"

A June article in the Islington Gazette said that the building would be finished in September 2017 but it also said that the first permanent classrooms would be finished by September 2015. So, unless plans have changed, it would appear the second year's intake go into the first part of the building to be completed and brought into operation whilst work continues on the rest of the building.

@nlondondad

Your over-the-top use of language always makes me chuckle and one can only assume it is intentional to try to scare off prospective parents from considering WPS.

A classic example is you describing WPS as "seriously undersubscribed". If the figures from the article are correct then WPS is at about 76% of capacity. Ashmount School, for example, is currently at about 72% of capacity I.e. there are 118 "empty desks" does these mean Ashmount is "very seriously undersubscribed"? What about other Islington run primaries like Copenhagen Street and Pooles Park that are at 50% capacity? How would you describe them?

@TheNewBrown.

but surely, if as you say Ashmount is at only 72 per cent capacity then surely that would prove the claim that there is no shortage of places in the area and that millions of pounds of our money is being spent on a school - Whitehall Park School - which is not needed.?

Projected shortfall of 100,000 places by 2018 in London. If Islington is boosting capacity now, they are probably the only LA who will be sitting pretty in 3-4 years time.

@ PythagorousPlannedIt

If we are to strive for the accuracy that your antecedent namesake would certainly endorse… Then it is surely not nl'dad's overarching claims for the necessity of the new school or otherwise that 'NewBrown references, merely his use of inadvertently chucklesome hyperbole.

If the figures given unthread are correct, it does rather identify the whole labelling of 'undersubscribed/oversubscribed', whether seriously or very seriously etc, as kinds of nonsense terms that are wheeled out when convenient, as rhetorical aids to shore up particular positions. We all buy into this nonsense of course, but when they are clumsily deployed and exposed as such, you are left with egg on your face.

@JuniorJones

You ask if I would describe three schools you list in Islington, namely Ashmount, Copenhagen Street, and Pooles Park as "seriously undesubscribed". Assuming the figures you quote are accurate, the simple answer is:

"Yes"

Wasn't me that asked that, I was too busy sinking to new lows.

Apologies to JuniorJones, it was ThenewBrown. Its just that your posting styles are so similar.

I guess it must be hard picking out individuals from the cacophony of voices pointing out how misguided your campaign of hate against a new primary school is?

It does not make Whitehall Park School feel very open or welcoming if its supporters on Mumsnet react in such a hostile and suspicious way to reasonable questions.

As to accusing nlondondad of conducting a "campaign of hate"......because he is not a Whitehall Park School supporter, and he seems to ask questions you do not want to answer...

Pythagorous - many of the supporters of Whitehall Park have been very open & welcoming, in particular to prospective parents who are interested in the school as an option for their children. There are several examples on this thread.

However, the reality is that Nlondondad does not support the school and has been very vocal about his position for some time now, so it is perhaps not surprising that people are cautious about volunteering information in direct response to him. In any event, the questions he has asked have also been made the subject of a freedom of information request to the school so if they are reasonable (for example, the individual who has made the request has asked to be provided with the full postcode of every child at the school) the information will be made available.

Just coming back to this thread after a while and seems the discussion has gone downhill again.

If the school is not sure what FOI questions are admissible there will be someone in the local authority that can advise them or there is the Information Commissioners Office.

It's nice that some people/parents are delighted about the school and if they have happy kids there that's brilliant. But it doesn't follow that asking questions is unreasonable or anything to do with hate.

The school is brand new so has no track record, the type of school it is has had a very mixed press, the Whitehall park school website is not very detailed as I have said before.

it seems very normal that when a school doesn't have to abide by the same basics as a conventional school (free not to follow the national curriculum or qualified teachers etc) that there will be questions.

We're all taxpayers paying for this school so anyone should be able to ask (pretty much) anything they want to know. The withholding of information and obvious tension (on this thread at least) has created a strange atmosphere around it.

LocalMummyPerson it is worth revisiting the website which has been developed significantly.

@PythagorousPlannedIt

I accuse nlondondad of conducting a campaign of hate because that is what I have witnessed him do, on forums such as this, over several years with respect to Whitehall Park School.

Going through the application process and having your first child starting school is a deeply stressful time for most parents (even in the best of circumstances) and I don’t think it is unfair to say that nlondondad has made this experience even more stressful and unpleasant for a whole community living near the new Whitehall Park School.

I fully respect his right to have opposed the opening of the new school but I found the manner in which he went about it distasteful, often insulting and frequently misleading. (I’ll happily trawl back through a few of the other Mumsnet threads related to this topic to provide examples if you would like?)

I guess I naively assumed that once the school had opened (which it has) and proved it was viable (which it is) that he would gracefully concede defeat and stop attacking it. Unfortunately he is still here and his intent seems to now be to try to scare off potential parents from considering Whitehall Park School for their children in September 2015. Something, incidentally, I consider an ethically dubious thing to do considering he has openly declared on Mumsnet that he is a governor of Ashmount School.

With regard to his information requests, I don’t know if you have children at school or not, but if you were in a similar situation to Whitehall Park parents and someone on the internet was asking for detailed information on the numbers and addresses of children at your school, I assume you would do what we have done and direct them to contact the school to obtain that information. Partly because I don’t think any of the parents have the information to the level of detail that nlondondad seems to want and also because I would be unsure about what information is appropriate to be disseminated through internet forums. If nlondondad wants to portray this behaviour by parents as evidence of some sort of cover-up or conspiracy then I suppose that is his prerogative.

@TheNewBrown

Obviously there is a lot of ill feeling on this thread. But to the newcomer to it, interested in information, to see the term "campaign of hate" thrown about by you, when there is no evidence of it on this thread, and its not only nlondondad asking questions (and if he is, as you say, a school governor as well as a parent that would explain why he knows what questions to ask). Also while the number of children at the school has been asked for, I see no reference to their addresses being requested, which would have been silly anyway. Asking which boroughs they are from on the other hand makes sense to me, and these figures are easily available for Coleridge, for example, so why not Whitehall Park School? Also I repeat that you have produced figures a few postings up which suggest that there is a surplus of school places in Islington as you list three schools including the nearby Ashmount with vacant places. If that is so, why should public money be spent in large amounts on WPS? I have to tell you that there are a lot of my neighbours with children who are bemused by the whole Whitehall Park School thing and your attitude, and that of others, does not help.

@PythagorousPlannedIt

The vacant places I referred to at Ashmount are unfortunately not in reception, where the demand is, they are higher up in the school and obviously you can’t mix reception kids in with year 4 classes!

You ask why public money should be spent on building new primary schools? I am not sure I can think of many better uses for public funds than that. If a political party said they would raise income tax by 5% and all the money would be ring-fenced to build new schools they would definitely get my vote.

I’m just curious. Are your neighbours with children who are “bemused by the whole Whitehall Park School thing” all in the catchment area of their local OFSTED ‘outstanding’ school or are they in a schools black hole left by their local school being moved somewhere else against their wishes? It is amazing how passionate the latter situation can make previously bemused parents.

I was surprised to learn recently from a parent with older children at St Michael's Highgate primary, (with the previously-mentioned farmland attached!) that at the start of term they had some unfilled places in reception. I don't know whether these will have been filled up by now.

This seemed to me to demonstrate the aforementioned 'churn', making the existing local provision seem more plausibly adequate than first appears from the published results about the catchments at offer day. Is there some adjusted info about 'real' catchments that finally gets published somewhere, does anyone know..?

It really surprised me to hear this though, as St M school is legendary locally for being the one that parents will go through extreme contortions to get their children into.

This parent thought that some children who accept St M then go to independent schools, but their parents hold on to St M until the last minute as back up. This friend had no insider knowledge so who knows. I just thought that the spare places were surprising (and self-interestedly this cheered me up, as someone who worries about the black hole thing).

Not great for schools to be undersubscribed for any length of time obviously but I can't see St M's having too much trouble with that given its fantastic reputation/OFSTED.

@L'MummyPerson

Now that is interesting re. places. I too have heard that St. M's is used as a back up if the independent option fails, & yet, as we have seen on this thread, those much coveted spaces do come up.

However, it is somewhat cold comfort.

If you have been looking, as we have been, at various primary school options for the last two years or so, the last thing you want is to determine your children's place of education by the seemingly random, or at least unknowable outcome of the spin of a wheel conducted in the dog days of August just before term starts.

To concur with the similar sentiment expressed above - the luxury of being bemused, or similar states of mind, seems solely the preserve of those nestled comfortably within desirable catchment areas or those with no primary aged children at all.

This new school (WPS) does seem to redress the balance somewhat, and I feel it only right and decent, now that it has been set up, to give it a fair chance and assess it on evidence and personal experience, rather than these increasingly acrimonious forum based ding-dongs.

We shall be visiting WPS at the nearest opportunity to form our own opinion and the only sensible option for those parents with little toddlers nearing reception age is to do the same, as in the end, it will be their school not ours.

I don't think NLondondad has waged a campaign of hate. He seems to me justifiably concerned with what (to me) seems like an inefficient use of limited education funds.

Nobody wants to see children without a place, but an unaccountable private company being given a site that has already been proved unfit for the purpose of housing a primary school seems to be something worth questioning closely. The best way of insuring all children have a place is some sort of collaborative borough (and London) wide planning not ad hoc schools starting up here and there.

I don't have children in the immediate area but I do have children in an Islington primary which will be starved of funds as a consequence of the site not being sold as was the original plan when Ashmount moved. Even if I had no vested interest, I think anybody is allowed to ask questions about the use of taxpayers' money.

And, ultimately, if this ill-planned project goes belly-up, it's the children and families attending the school who will be most adversely affected. I don't wish it ill for this reason, but I would like reassurances.

As aside, people keeping hold of coveted state school places with no intention of using them are an abomination (eg at St Michael's). It's so selfish.

@LocalMummyPerson

Relating to your query about whether anyone publishes 'final' figures of cut-off distances, I don't think they do and Islington certainly don't. I remember being a bit frustrated by this when I was going through the application process last year because it was hard to make informed choices based on the 'offer day' distances. Some schools did provide the 'September' cut-off distances when I contacted them directly so I would recommend ringing around any schools you are considering to find out.

unaccountable private company

Free schools are run by charities.

The best way of insuring all children have a place is some sort of collaborative borough (and London) wide planning not ad hoc schools starting up here and there

Putting aside the fact that many London boroughs have been pretty poor at planning for primary school places, supporters of free schools would argue that it is reasonable to create a school in areas where the existing schools are rubbish even if there isn't a shortage of places.

starved of funds as a consequence of the site not being sold

Was the plan to sell the site and use the money for other schools? I'm surprised given government restrictions on the use of money by local government but happy to be told otherwise, especially if someone can point me at anything giving details of this plan. However, in terms of revenue spending the presence or otherwise of this school will only result in existing schools being "starved of funds" if the number of pupils they have on the roll goes down.

@Namilyname

Maybe it feels more like a campaign of hate when you and your family have been on the receiving end of it for several years.

To add to Prh47bridges comment I would also say that the site has not 'been proved unfit for housing a primary school' it is a perfect site for housing a primary school as it has done for 60-odd years. It is just that some of the school buildings need major refurbishment or rebuilding which the DfE is now providing.

I am also not sure how (or why) you think the school will go 'belly-up'. The initial funding agreement is for at least 7 years. Technically any school could go 'belly-up' by 2023 and there is no reason to think this school is any more likely to do so than any other.