Sample Letters
Here are some sample letters for you to get some ideas from:. Feel free to pick and choose and edit as you see fit.
Template Letter
We have provided a Template Letter but please edit it as you see fit before sending it. We’re not telling you what to write, just giving some pointers
Please send your letter to: School Admissions Consultation, Wokingham Borough Council, Children’s Services, Civic Offices, Shute End, Wokingham, RG40 1WN
Sample Letters
We’ve add some sample letters below – Feel free to use whichever sections you agree with
Dear Sir or Madam
I strongly object to the proposed changes to Maiden Erlegh (ME) Catchment Area
I would like to make a couple of general comments before the specific objections:
- I fear that this process has become so influenced by politics that it has become blinkered to the requirements and rules of the Schools Admissions Code
- The only objective measures available for Bulmershe and Maiden Erlegh are exam results and OFSTED reports and in both cases there is significant performance gap between the two
- This issue seems to be mainly related to the closure of Ryeish Green School and the knock-on effects rippling through the area.
- The catchments and admissions for Maiden Erlegh and Bulmershe have been working well for many years and it is not fair or justified to disadvantage these parents for the benefit of people who live much further away and who never had any expectation of attending this school
- The WBC independent consultants have identified that the current arrangements are ‘operating satisfactorily’ and they ‘have not identified an urgent and pressing need for change’. The proposal being consulted on seems to be deficient for many reasons so please do not force through a flawed concept when it is not essential
- The most sensible course of action seems to be to put these proposals on hold and co-operate with Reading Borough Council to resolve the South Reading problem
- Consultants obviously recommend change, that’s the only way they justify their contracts. This doesn’t mean that change is essential
I realise it is a very difficult situation but I sincerely believe that the current proposal is unfair and unworkable and should be rejected.
There is obviously an issue in Lower Earley and South Reading but this change is not the answer to that. I urge WBC to work with RBC to provide a sensible long-term solution together. I have some suggestions for alternatives which I will make in a separate document
Linked Schools
Even with the current DA, the linked primary school criterion serves little purpose and I agree it should be deleted to clarify the admissions arrangements
I know that some primary schools are campaigning for exclusive, special status.Allowing some schools/areas special status would not seem reasonable
Designated Area – Area Between Wokingham Road and Train Lines
There is an area between the railway lines and the Wokingham Road that is currently in Bulmershe catchment. Although this is close to Maiden Erlegh, it is the closest area to Bulmershe.
It makes no sense to add this area to Maiden Erlegh at the expense of areas further away.
Size Of Designated Area
As the independent consultants have stated:
Ideally designated areas should have sufficient places within them to meet forecast demand. Although the Code of practice states that there should not be a guarantee of a place parents reasonably expect that if they are part of a designated area it means that there will be a place for them [Review Board reports to Admissions Forum]
And
A good designated area (DA) will have a match between forecast numbers and capacity and will facilitate the overall distribution of pupils in an area. It should be understandable and logical in its formation. [Review Of Secondary School Arrangements in Wokingham]
WBC officers also stated at the St Crispins meeting that too large designated areas are not a good idea.
The fact that this is a shared DA with Bulmershe doesn’t seem relevant as practically everyone in the DA will want to attend and will apply to Maiden Erlegh
To implement such a massively oversubscribed designated area just doesn’t make sense. There will always be disappointed parents and there will always be many appeals
As the proposed DA is so big, families could temporarily move into a high priority zone until their first child is at the school, and then move to another area and still be in the DA. All siblings can then be sure of a place as they still live in catchment
The Tie-Break
The nearest alternative school is used in a few other (mainly rural) cases around the country but there seem to be no other cases where the alternative is named.
The naming of one alternative distorts the admissions pattern immensely and excludes areas that are very close to the school. Any tie-break that only considers 2 schools is doomed because of the distortion
It is not clear or concise and is impossible for parents to have any idea of their chances of a place at Maiden Erlegh, especially in the first few years of operation.
It prioritises children living 3km away over children that may live very close to the school which is ridiculous
It is a very unstable model as the band contour spacing is not even. Very small errors where the contours are close together can make a massive difference to the overall ‘score’
This proposal ignores schools much closer to parts of Lower Earley (e.g. John Madjeski, Reading Girls, Emmbrook or Forest. John Madjeski is actually the closest school to much of the affected area.
Previous adjudicator rulings have indicated that “The nearest school may be either inside or outside the county boundary“ [ADA/001176] so the fact that some of the other schools are in Reading Borough is irrelevant
This is a very unsound proposal
Social And Demographic Issues
The Admissions Code guidelines states “all backgrounds, races and beliefs [should] have the same opportunities to go to quality schools.”
The Admissions Code is also very clear on this matter in paragraph 2.40: ‘in drawing up catchment areas, admission authorities should ensure that they reflect the diversity of the community served by the school and must not exclude particular housing estates or addresses in such a way that might disadvantage particular social groups’.
It may be unintentional but the proposals will have exactly this effect.
Wokingham studies have focussed on large area comparisons of deprivation but this is flawed. Drilling down to a much lower level is required.
The first areas to be excluded are the most deprived estates in the designated area. It excludes the most disadvantaged pupils from an ‘Outstanding’ school.
This is a cornerstone of the Admissions Code and I am stunned that it is being overlooked
This seems to be a clear breach of the Admissions Code
Complexity And Clarity
School Admissions Code section 1.5 states that “A fair system is one that provides parents with clear information about admissions and supports those parents who find it hardest to understand the system”
The system is not clear and parents who find it hard to understand the system will find it impossible to assess their chances of obtaining a place at Maiden Erlegh. Even parents who do understand the system will find it impossible to predict, especially in the first few years of operation
Community
Maiden Erelgh has been our community school for 30 years. I walk down our street and practically every house has had, or currently has children that attend Maiden Erlegh
Destroying this, for the sake of people that have never had anything to do with the school is incredibly unfair
Parental Choice
Another fundamental part of education policy is that of choice. The proposal removes all choice from a large group of parents and reallocates it to another group. Again, how can this be fair?
Traffic and Green Issues
WBC have emphasised the green credentials of the proposal based on children walking 2 or 3 miles to school. This is simply not the case. Independent research indicates that as the distance increases over one mile, car usage increases hugely.
The areas being added to the catchment are largely over 1 mile travel distance from Maiden Erlegh, meaning families in those areas will still drive. Plus families that are now assigned to Bulmershe will drive there where they would have walked to Maiden Erlegh.
This invalidates the traffic studies that WBC have so far undertaken. Local residents and the police are already concerned about traffic levels around Maiden Erlegh and this proposal will make things significantly worse
This will result in many more car journeys
Greenwich Judgment and Disadvantaging Neighbouring Boroughs
The Schools Admission Code is very clear that designated areas should not disadvantage neighbouring boroughs.
The Park (South) area of Reading is currently in the DA of an outstanding school. The proposal excludes practically all Reading streets before any Wokingham streets
Many thanks for reading this email
Dear Sir or Madam
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposals for the new designated area for Maiden Erlegh School. I appreciate that following the closure of Ryeish Green there has been a need to review the admissions arrangements. However, the informal consultation and this formal consultation have shown that there is no quick and easy answer to the problem of school places and their distribution in Earley. It is clear that with this proposal there will be more losers than winners and I would urge Wokingham Borough Council not to implement this new catchment area and tie-breaker. I list my reasons below.
* History and Community: This will divide our community which surrounds the school, with some getting in and others not. In time, Maiden Erlegh School will become detached from the community living on its door step, and serve a community which lives further away. I was brought up on the Silverdale Road, moving to the Wokingham Road by Maiden Erlegh drive when I went to secondary school. It is ridiculous that in the future children that live there won’t get into Maiden Erlegh –given the high number of siblings and likely migration to Lower Earley.
* Size of Designated Area: It makes no sense to enlarge a designated area so that it is massively too big for the school capacity (as confirmed by the Independent Review commissioned by WBC). If and when both schools are of the same quality and enjoy the same reputation, then and only then, does it make sense to have such a big shared catchment area. This proposal will lead to anxiety and stress for parents. It will also lead to huge numbers of appeals (at £200 a piece excluding Head Teacher time) which Maiden Erlegh will have to administer – at the taxpayers’ expense.
* Traffic and Safety: For parents who live less than one mile from Maiden Erlegh, they will have to let their children cross a dangerous, busy road and negotiate a narrow bridge over a railway and motorway to get to Bulmershe, all in darkness in winter. For my children it is double the distance to school. Those who can will drive their children, creating lots of congestion in the Three Tuns area. The idea that all Lower Earley children will walk to Maiden Erlegh is quite ridiculous. Jut because they live within 2 or 3 miles, will they walk that distance, given the car dependency (and two car ownership) in that community? This will vastly increase the numbers of car journeys to Maiden Erlegh and increase the number of car journeys to Bulmershe. The congestion and parking around the school site was a real concern when I left in 1991, I can’t imagine what it will be like with these new proposals. Most importantly, the knock on implications for child safety around the Silverdale Parade must not be ignored.
* Tie Break: The proposed tie-break is far too complex and difficult to understand (so breaching the Schools Admissions Code). It gives many parents no way of assessing if a child will get a place at Maiden Erlegh. This will lead to much anxiety on local families and cause a population shift to the safer zones in Lower Earley, further cutting the school from its surrounding housing estates. It makes no sense to name the alternative when other schools (John Madjeski, Reading Girls and Forest are much closer for parts of Lower Earley) – the Borough Boundary is irrelevant in this matter.
* Social/Demographic Issues: This proposal clearly does not comply with the Schools Admission Code on this matter. The first area to be excluded by the tie-break is the most deprived area of the DA. It will adversely impact the diversity of Maiden Erlegh and The Bulmershe and deprive children of a chance at an ‘Outstanding’ school. It also potentially falls foul of the Greenwich judgment as clearly no Reading children will get a place.
It was clear from the public consultation meeting that both councils need to work far more closely together to develop a long term sustainable ten-year plan for school places in this part of East Reading and Wokingham. This must include:
* Investing in Bulmershe to improve its Ofsted Rating – look what has happened in recent years at Highdown and Prospect Schools. If Maiden Erlegh and Bulmershe schools both had a good rating or higher, you would not be faced with this difficult situation. Lower Earley parents would not be lobbying for spaces and East Reading and Earley residents would not be campaigning so hard against your proposals.
* Developing a new school south of the Wokingham Borough which Lower Earley and Wokingham children can attend (potentially moving and improving Emmbrook)
* Reviewing the grammar schools in Reading – particular their catchment areas. When I was a child, these schools were only for Reading children. Now Kendrick does not even have a catchment area. I would suggest that there is at least some sort of quota for children who live locally – say within 30 minutes of the school.
* Developing a new school in East Reading on the TVU Crescent Road site. As the site is small, numbers will be limited. And this school would still be a long way from Lower Earley so this alone can not be the solution.
In summary, I urge you to think again, put a stop to these proposals, work with RBC and come back to the table with a longer term and sustainable solution.
Yours faithfully
