EMAIL 1 Response from West Sussex regarding out-of-county admissions.
Mrs Dyer,
Thank you for your enquiry regarding out of county applications to West Sussex Schools please accept my apologies for the delay in replying.
Parents living outside West Sussex can apply for a school in this county but must do so by completing their home Council's form at secondary transfer. The West Sussex County Council over-subscription criteria gives priority based upon catchment area and applies to all applicants regardless of which county they live in. Therefore applicants from Surrey and West Sussex (or other Counties) who live outside the preferred school's catchment area receive equal priority. Applications are however prioritised according to the criteria below and in the case of over-subscription in any of the categories, priority of placement is given to applicants who live nearest the school (measured by a straight line from school to home, using Ordnance Survey address point data). Unless accepted as being category 1, applications from Surrey parents would be considered in category 4 or 5 of the criteria below.
1. Children who need a place at the school on exceptional and compelling social, psychological or medical grounds OR children with a statement of special educational needs naming the school OR Looked After Children (children in public care);
1.. children who live in the catchment area with brothers or sisters already attending the school and who will still be there when the child starts (brothers or sisters may be half or step-siblings but must be living permanently at the same address);
2.. other children who live in the catchment area;
3.. children who live outside the catchment area with brothers or sisters already attending the school and who will still be there when the child starts (brothers or sisters may be half or step-siblings but must be living permanently at the same address);
4.. other children who live outside the catchment area.
In the 2007 round, Imberhorne School was over-subscribed and 20 applicants were refused places at the school. Sackville school was not fully subscribed admitting 260 pupils with a published admission number of 270. Availability at schools in future years is never guaranteed to any parent as patterns of parental preference and catchment area numbers can fluctuate. Published Admission numbers and over-subscription criteria's can also be reviewed and amended.
I can confirm that Surrey County Council are undertaking the necessary consultation process with West Sussex County Council regarding the proposed changes.
I hope the above answers your query but if you should require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Karen Goswell-Jenking
Senior Administrative Assistant
Pupil Admissions Team
Karen Goswell-Jenking | Senior Administrative Assistant, CYPS
(Learning), West Sussex County Council
Location: Pupil Admissions Office (South), Centenary House, Durrington
Lane, Worthing, BN13 2QB
Internal: 39203 | External: +44 (0) 1903-839203 | E-mail:
karen.goswell-jenking@westsussex.gov.uk
back to list
EMAIL 2 Public email to Nick Skellet - leader of Surrey County Council
Dear Mr Skellett,
I am a parent of children at Lingfield Primary School and a member of the 8 minutes to Oxted campaign team, which is objecting to the proposal by Surrey County Council to remove Lingfield and Dormansland from the catchment area for Oxted Secondary School.
Representatives of our campaign team are engaged in ongoing discussions with your colleague Andrew Crisp, the Executive Member responsible for schools, with regard to the unsuitability of the proposal. My communication to you now is separate from - and without prejudice to - those discussions, and takes the form of an "open letter" (copied to concerned media), sent by e-mail rather than post, because the issues require swift and public responses that may be taken into account prior to the end of the public consultation period on 31st January.
The proposal recommends reducing the catchment area by cutting out locations which have close alternative schools. It identifies Lingfield and Dormansland on the grounds that there are schools close by in West Sussex - a different education authority. In fact one of these schools is oversubscribed and the other could only take a few of our children, forcing the majority cross country to Horley which has no public transport links with Lingfield and Dormansland, unless you count a 75 minute one-way train journey via East Croydon.
What the proposal fails to mention is that communities within the northern part of the Oxted School catchment area (such as Woldingham) have a greater choice of alternative schools, a number of which are closer than Oxted, and that places exist. Executive Committee Member Sally Marks confirmed publicly at last month's SCC Local Committee meeting in Oxted that De Stafford School could be doubled in size. De Stafford is closer than Oxted to many locations in the northern and central parts of the catchment area and is only one of the alternative options.
Given a map of the existing catchment area, locations of the schools, details on admissions for Surrey and West Sussex, and information regarding public transport, it is hard to see how any impartial individual could have thought it best to reduce the catchment area by cutting out Lingfield and Dormansland, without first looking at virtually every other location within the current boundaries. In other words, the worst possible solution has been identified and the most obvious starting point has been ignored completely.
Many of our parents and other members of the communities of Lingfield and Dormansland have looked at the proposal and either questioned or reached their own conclusions as to why the northern part of the catchment area has not even been considered as an option.
One parent sent an e-mail to SCC officers asking why the north was not looked at and was given an incorrect and inadequate response stating that it wasn't worth it as not enough children went from there to Oxted. In fact admissions figures for 2007 show there was a difference of only six in the number of children from the northern area and those from Lingfield and Dormansland who went to Oxted.
I have to tell you that there are only two interpretations among most people locally. One is that councillors and officers concerned are ignorant of the facts, have not sufficiently thought through the consequences, and do not communicate properly with each other - i.e. incompetence, and the other is that vested interests are being protected, either directly by members of the executive, or on their behalf by the officers.
The first interpretation tends to be supported by the responses of Peter Langham, member for Caterham Hill, who chaired the SCC Local Committee meeting in Oxted last month. Mr Langham repeatedly deflected questions by stating that he didn't know the answers and that we should talk to either the education portfolio holder and councillor for Woking South, Andrew Crisp, or to the officers of the council - none of whom were at the meeting.
The second interpretation, that interests are being protected, is down to a combination of the following
(a) The failure to even mention the northern part of the catchment area as an option within the proposal, which just doesn't make sense.
(b) The northern part of the catchment area and locations of schools affected by its inclusion/exclusion are represented by a close group of neighbouring and influential County Councillors, including you yourself (Oxted), Sally Marks (Caterham Valley), Peter Langham (Caterham Hill) and David Hodge (Warlingham).
(c) People know that Surrey County Council functions by executive rule - i.e. that the Executive of ten members reaches its decisions and that these decisions are rubber stamped by the other seventy councillors. They see that you are Chair of the Executive and Leader of the Council, and that Sally Marks is a fellow member of the Executive.
(d) The proposal states that County Council Members impacted were given a copy of it once prepared but were not consulted during its preparation - i.e. Ken Rimington for Lingfield and Dormansland was not allowed to participate and question why northern parts of the catchment area had not been considered as options - similarly, I understand that Marion Myland for Godstone was not consulted and that the objections of both Councillors were ignored by the Executive at subsequent meetings.
(e) Apart from your council role, it is understood that you are also a Governor of Oxted School.
It seems that there are clear conflicts of interest both for you and Sally Marks at least.
I call on you and Sally Marks to stand down temporarily from the Executive Committee and be replaced by other councillors when any decisions regarding the Oxted catchment area are made.
For the sake of good faith and transparency, I would suggest that your temporary replacements come either from a different political party or are independent County Councillors, representing electoral divisions entirely unconnected with this area
Finally and on a separate issue, I would suggest that Surrey County Council offers its executives training and advice on presentation and choice of words when being interviewed by the media.
Last weekend, during a BBC South East television report on the hugely successful march and rally in Lingfield in opposition to SCC's proposal, Andrew Webster, Surrey's Strategic Director for Families - and most senior officer for education matters - made a particularly poor impression.
Throughout the interview in front of Oxted school Mr Webster appeared to grin inanely at the camera, managing to convey not an ounce of sympathy or sincerity over what is a matter of very grave concern to the families in our communities and then to cap it all he described the proposal as "fairer for everyone". I would not suggest that Mr Webster repeats that on any future visit to our area.
Yours sincerely,
Paul Dalrymple
back to list