1. The adjudicator clearly stated that the children in Lingfield and Dormansland have no reasonable confidence of a place at Oxted and therefore the catchment area needs to be looked at. At no point did he say that we had to be excluded and there is no clear argument as to how this gives us any more certainty of a school place. He said it had to be tackled more directly and we would like the council to do that taking into account the make up and distribution of the population.
2. Most children secured a place at Oxted through waiting lists last year and therefore the adjudicator's comments in paragraph 31 of his decision that the current model is capable of further refinement should get further refinement not a radical change which would actually release far more places than necessary.
3. It is important to take into account long term relationships between
schools. The admission code (Appendix 5 para2) states that the transition
between primary and secondary school can be one of the most difficult times
for families and children. Most parents and carers recognise the critical
importance of getting a place in a secondary school that will meet their
children's academic and developmental needs, is easy to travel to, and where
their children will be happy and want to attend
. There is a long standing
relationship between Lingfield and Dormansland and Oxted, it is easy to
travel to and it is where the majority of children want to attend because of
the links between the schools and the historical relationship. Oxted School
has a family of schools
and we would like this to be maintained. The
alternatives are not where the majority of children wishes to attend and in
most cases are not easy to travel to. The nearest alternative school in
Surrey is Oakwood in Horley. There are absolutely NO community,
geographical or political links with Lingfield and Dormansland and Horley
other than that they are all in Surrey
4. The proposal seems to ignore the schools admission code 2.21 that local authorities should take into account the time it will take to travel to school. We are not in the catchment area for Sackville or Imberhorne and therefore have no realistic chance of a place in those schools in the future given the number of proposed new houses. The alternative is not easy to travel to even on a school bus and ironically the children from the addresses nearer to Oakwood would have to travel past addresses which are further away to actually get there. If children need to use public transport the train journey would go through Oxted on its way.
5. Based on figures for last year the exclusion of Lingfield and Dormansland from the catchment area would actually release far more places than required (i.e. it is sledgehammer to crack a nut). Those places would be awarded to children out of the catchment area based on nearest to school. Children in Kent e.g., Edenbridge, Westerham Biggin Hill are nearer to Oxted than we are and therefore we will lose out to out of county children. It is the responsibility of Surrey to provide a school place for all out children and we see no reason why we should be denied our choice whilst children from another county are educated by Surrey on the basis of where they live when there are in county solutions.
6. Because we are a rural community we will always be at the bottom of the pile based on nearest to school criteria. We are further away from Oxted School than other children in different areas of the catchment area. This is not a reason to exclude us as we will also be further away from the schools in West Sussex than the children in West Sussex and further away from Oakwood than the children who live in Horley. Therefore we need a proposal which gives us reasonable confidence of a school place without splitting up all our children and sending them to make up the numbers in several schools. Many children who live nearer to Oxted than we do have much nearer alternative schools which is presumably why the adjudicator ruled for 2008 admission that the tie breaker would be based on next nearest alternative schools. This has not been modelled or trialled and yet another proposal has been put forward. There are several ideas which could be put forward to safeguard children in a rural community such as partner schools but at the very least a simple way forward is to keep us in the catchment area so that we have a chance of admission before out of county applicants and then to use nearest alternative school as a tie breaker so that we do not always lose out to more densely populated areas who have far more choice than us.
7. In para 24 of the adjudicator's determination, the point was made that the unpredictable nature of admissions into Oxted in 2007 was predominantly a function of the newness of the arrangements and the fact they involved a number of different changes (introduction of equal preference and withdrawal of the ability to allocate places to Oxted in excess of their PAN). The adjudicator refrained from proposing a long term solution into Oxted as he recognised the complexity of the local situation and therfore the potential for further unintended or unpredictable consequences. He left it to the Council to further refine
his short term solution for 2008. Without having modelled the impact of the 2008 proposal on 2007 admissions and therefore without understanding whether this solution would in fact work into the longer term, the Council have proposed a variation that is a hasty and ill-considered response to a particular local problem that will cause more problems than it will solve, and will not be in the long term interests of the schools or families. There is no reason at all why the Council should have taken such a radical approach as to exclude Lingfield and Dormansland from the catchment area of Oxted, and we do not believe the Council has given due consideration to alternative proposals that seek to maintain the status quo.