La Fontaine Academy - Bromley

[Hooliesmoolies]

Has anyone got children there? How are they finding it? How is the school working? Any teething problems? I'm considering moving my child, and just wondered if anyone could tell me how it was all going. Thanks so much.

One of the things that really saddens me when looking at Bromley's lack of school places and, particularly thinking about the problems that are going to come soon as the baby boom starts to hit secondary places is that nothing was ever attempted (as far as I know) to acquire the old Holy Trinity College buildings and grounds on Plaistow Lane when they were for sale a few years ago. There was substantial grounds attached to what used to be a small junior and senior independent school, and would have been a wonderful site for either a primary or senior school if it had been possible to acquire it.

Now it has been turned into flats and a handful of expensive houses and the substantial grounds are lost to local residents for good. A real waste.

As to putting La Fontaine on a recreation ground - I don't live in the immediate area but I am definitely with those who think that the last thing any part of central(ish) Bromley needs is the loss of any piece of open ground. There are so few local parks and open space as it is. What is wrong with the temporary site the school is on now? Is it earmarked for another use?

That's an excellent point - had totally forgotten about Holy Trinity.

And of course, it would have been excellent if the Council had been able to get the developer of trinity village by the Crown to include a primary school. Such a shame, given that they were able to do that at the Glaxo site - resulting in the Unicorn Primary.

It's just so short sighted and ever has been so - I recall the merger of walsingham, ravensbourne girls (widmore centre adult education place now - poss alternative site for this free school) and ravensbourne boys school because there was a falling roll at secondary. The net result of which is to not be able to cope with an increase in the pupil numbers, even with the building of Bishop Justus.

I'm not sure what the issue would be with staying at Princes Plain. Though that's an academy now and it might be that they don't want to site share. I understand that a number of parents from PP have jumped ship to the free school within the grounds, which must be a bit problematic for PP given they are undersubscribed and the way that funding is tied to pupil numbers.

Whatever - still doesn't make it a great idea to develop on existing green spaces.

I agree, it is not a good idea to build on existing green space. As Pooka said, there is considerable local opposition to the scheme. The proposal is for a 3 form entry school which equates to 600 children. That will result in a large increase in traffic. At Rush hour, Holmesdale Road is already one long queue with traffic from Tesco's, Waldo Road waste site, Raglan school, and Virgin Active.

Furthermore, it will not be local community school. Under its admissions policy, La Fontaine allocates half of its places by lottery, therefore half of the school places will not be for local children. Inevitably, these parents will drive to school. Local residents will lose green space and experience an increase in traffic congestion for the benefit of non local people.

The local conservatives are surveying local residents. It has been suggested that start and finish times will be staggered with the local school or La Fontaine parents will not be allowed to drive to school!

If you wish you register your opposition to this development please sign the petition at change.org and follow developments on 'The Friends of Havelock Recreation Ground' Facebook page.

How do they plan to police parents not driving their children to school exactly? And even it was possible, what are the alternatives for non-locals? Public transport isn't great round there - it's quite a walk from any station. Which I thought was the advantage of the original site at Bromley South. Presumably the problem with that is that it isn't big enough to accommodate a three-form intake - originally the plan was for less forms and small classes but that was scrapped, for financial reasons, I guess.

And given that there are black holes in places like the Palace Estate, where you can find yourself not within the relevant distance for any local school, if a school is going to be built somewhere central-ish in Bromley, it really should be one which is purely for the community, not one where half the places are potentially going to people out of the borough.

fewer, not less forms - sorry

It saddens me that you have chosen to spread the discussion from the discussion site which was supposed to be a neutral place for the two sides to talk, to here, particularly since there is so much misinformation in what has just been said.

No one has said parents wouldn't be allowed to drive. No one has said that traffic isn't an important consideration and shouldn't be looked into, the school didn't select the site. It was proposed by LLB and the EFA as the best option given all the circumstances. You are against that, fair enough, but it IS a community school. Just because you don't consider languages important, it doesn't mean others don't. If the catchment area of a school is 0.3 miles, say, the lottery system means that children 0.35, 0.4, 1 mile away can get in. They are still part of the community. The parents at the school don't know why this has been identified as the best potential site, you don't know why but it certainly isn't the fault of the school that it has been suggested.

Hang on a minute. It was lafontaineparent01 who chose to resurrect the thread with their "info re move to havelock road" post over the weekend.

Surely it's fair to introduce balance?

You did Pooka, with your first post. But all of the other ones after, were they necessary? The petition wasn't placed here, just some FAQ's.

Who said anything about "sides"? People posted information on here and we are discussing it. I am quite sure that our musings on Mumsnet are unlikely to be the basis for the final decision on where the school is located. If you want to discuss the issue on the discussion site, go ahead.

That's mumsnet for you. :) There's no predicting how things will pan out, how many posters will say the same thing (in slightly different ways) or bundle in a la AIBU.

Whether or not a post is necessary is in the eye of the poster I suppose, and if people want to comment, they will comment. So long as the postings don't infringe mumsnet posting guidelines, and aren't personal attacks they'll stand (not sure whether petitions are allowed or not, and that's not something I linked to, although I did link, as did Lafontaineparent01, to external information relating to the proposal). I guess if you feel that the posts following LFP01 are unfair, unreasonable or don't comply with the posting guidelines, you can report to MNHQ and see whether they agree.

Incidentally, local councillors asked on their own survey whether locals would be more or less favourable to the proposal if parents were prevented from driving their children to havelock road. Which even the antis very quickly commented in as being absurd and unenforceable.

I think the borough has got itself into a right old mess re primary places and has been incredibly shortsighted in not predicting the forecast demand for places. I agree that the borough needs more primary places. I don't agree with the proposed site, though I wish the school all the best for finding somewhere more suitable.

I absolutely don't feel the post following from LFP01 are unfair. I thought it was very fair of you to post your first post. I said so. I just think it is a shame that people will present a school as not being part of a community simply because they are against something the school is not responsible. Questions like 'why can't they stay where they are' are essentially another way of saying it is the schools fault, they are asking to move.

Whilst mumsnet is indeed a place to debate and discuss - in my view it is disingenuous to suggest that you were simply having an open discussion. The very fact that the posters knew about the comments in the council petition suggests that it isn't just an open random discussion. There is no need to do it here really because the general community on the Primary Boards probably aren't that interested in the local discussions regarding the location of a particular school. So, it does seem to me that the main intention is to make the school look bad (by suggesting/intimating that this situation is in someway their fault). And that, I find sad. The school is made up of children trying to get an education, and parents trying to get their children educated. There is no evil agenda.

Should say the post following from LFP01 WAS unfair, not are.

Actually, just to pick up on a couple of the points you made, I don't think anyone said that they don't think languages are important but I apologise if I have missed where someone did.

I for one think a bilingual school is a marvellous idea and am all for it as a concept, but account also has to be taken of actually providing a local school place for all children if possible. My understanding of the entry criteria for La Fontaine was that half the places were allocated on distance and the other half were awarded by lottery and distance was not part of that criteria. If that is not the case and children still have to be living within 1 mile of the school as you seem to suggest, then I agree, it is truly a community school.

Like Pooka, however, I think there is a big problem with school places in Bromley (like many boroughs) and it is soon going to spread from largely being focussed on primary schools to also causing problems at secondary level (although obviously that is an issue for another thread).

One of the things that really saddens me when looking at Bromley's lack of school places and, particularly thinking about the problems that are going to come soon as the baby boom starts to hit secondary places

This a million times over.

They keep allowing new houses to be built but do very little to think long term about school places. We are moving out of the area partly because of this.

I know it sounds very playground (how apt) but I do kind of feel like saying "he started it" by resurrecting the thread with information about the proposed move to havelock road, and that for balance (and I suppose also for information for prospective parents, though that makes me sound more altruistic that I was in intention) it was worth flagging up that there are concerns about the proposed move.

And then as is the way, the thread moved onto discussion about other "black hole" areas and missed opportunities elsewhere to provide additional places in developments in the borough. I haven't seen, though may have missed, anyone making comments dissing the school, although some posters (myself included) have queried the suitability of the proposed site for redevelopment.

I can entirely appreciate that as a parent with a child at the school, you must be anxious about next steps and where the school will end up being sited. I would disagree with you though when you state that the school would be part of the community, when in building there the school (impersonal, not criticising parents) would have an adverse impact on the community. I do think there's a problem with the admission criteria allowing lottery applications for 50% of the places. Yes, those 45 places could go to people living a whisker outside whatever catchment results from the first 45 spaces going locally. But there are no guarantees, and you could end up with children being driven in from considerable distance away, including Hayes beckenham, shortlands or petts wood way. If it is the objective to integrate with the community would it not make more sense for all (or most) 90 reception places to be handed out on distance alone, with a suitable calculation of appropriate sibling distance, I.e. LAC, siblings living within 2miles and remainder allocated on distance. Cutting the potential catchment might allay some fears about traffic and congestion.

I've always had a bit of a bugbear about the known phenomenon of parents getting into school of choice then moving away and still having sibling priority. There should be a emoticon.

FrozenAteMyDaughter (I do love your name). School places is such a massive problem in Bromley (and London). My local school had a catchment of 0.18 of a mile in the year my daughter started - so there were many local parents who couldn't get in and had to go to a school miles away. There isn't a restriction on the distance for the lottery - but the reality is that most people don't want to have to commute a stupid distance for a school. So the people who apply through the lottery are the ones who either won't get in on catchment, but still live close - that is a huge number of people within a local community for most schools. But if people do come from slightly further, then it is because the REALLY value the school. That works well for the school community, and helps make the school a stronger environment, and that in turn has positive effects for the local community (in my view anyway).

Church schools don't do simple distance, they also apply other criteria (attending the church). It isn't that uncommon, and it really doesn't stop the school from being part of the community or wanting to actively embrace that community. One of the things that La Fontaine do really well is to focus on values, character and within that is the importance of community (within a classroom, within the school, beyond the school to include the parents).

There have been many things said about the school which are not correct (and as you can probably imagine, not designed to present the school in a positive light), and so perhaps I am just feeling really over sensitive. None of this is the school's fault.

Yes, the secondary situation is also worrying. I know that bullers wood are hoping to build a free school (bullers wood school for boys) that would have a 180 intake. It seems to me that there is a definite unbalance though in that thinking about it, there are quite a few secondary schools near to bromley/bickley (ravensbourne, bullers wood girls, bishop Justus, ravens wood) and then not much provision out in orpington other than the Priory, because the darrick wood catchment is minuscule despite being 10 form entry I think.

That the borough haven't been able or inclined to make school provision part of large development proposals is shocking.

I have applied for my DD to start in September 2015. Does anyone know if there are many siblings applying or if the school is going to be oversubscribed in 2015?

This thread highlights how damaging the government's education policy has been. With local councils having the authority to build new schools taken away from them, they are now relying on free schools and academies to fill in gaps. That strategic overview has gone and the response to the increase in school places needed is reactionary and ad hoc.

Again, government policy has allowed a school to be set up, for it to employ staff and enroll pupils without having a permanent site. That is madness. Now, because the school is there, there is a demand that it is housed. Local children and parents will have a bilingual school as their local school whether they agree with that ideology or not.

If some of the reasons for not using the dss building in Bromley south are for pollution are you also forgetting that one road away from Havelock recreation ground is the local waste disposal site which also causes alot of pollution not only with their huge lorries but with the amount of congestion along the local roads with cars queueing and waiting to get into the depot. With the potential of more parents driving into the area this will increase these queues, drivers will be more irrate and make the local roads more dangerous than they already are. I walk my children along Homesdale Road every morning to another local primary school called St Georges which is not mentioned in the statistic above for school places and confront these dangers every morning. Homesdale Road is horrendous to cross as it is. St Georges do not have a catchment area and take children in from out of the area. Should we not be utilising the schools we have already and put new schools into the areas where people are travelling from thus preserving our green areas. Just my view

Hi Mummie11, I don't know about the number of siblings or if the school is going to be over subscribed, but I do know that there were 49 applications for children who lived within 1 mile of Havelock Rec. Considering there would have been applications from elsewhere, my guess would be that the school will be oversubscribed. But with the lottery, if you don't get a place on proximity, you will still stand a chance with the lottery. Hope you get positive news in April . If you do, your DD may be in my DS's class

Thank you for your reply Itshouldntmatter . La Fontaine was our first choice. As we live further away our application will only be considered for the lottery. Fingers crossed!:)

Have my fingers crossed for you mummie11.

I live in the area. Opposition to building on the park is huge and it's great to see that our local councillors and MP, a former government minister, support local residents. Bob Neill MP has said Havelock rec is 'absolutely the wrong site' for La Fontaine. Of course we need schools but, as others have said, there are many suitable brownfield sites. Destroying our green space is not the answer. The traffic management proposals are completely unenforceable and impractical - you'd have to be a right tool to think they'd work.