Parents to 'fight' proposal for extra class at overcrowded school (From Enfield Independent)

Unfortunately, a significant number of parents at the school have abused the system for place allocation for many years to such an extent that the school no longer serves the community in which it is located. It is a pity that the Action Group did not campaign against these parents who temporary rent one of the local flats not only to get one child, but all their subsequent siblings, into school. The catchment area is so small this year that the majority of it is the flats and the neighbouring cricket ground! We have to consider whether we want our child to share their school life with children from such families. Walker is our nearest primary school - De Bohun is a our 24th - is it right that we send our daughter to a school so far away while many of the parents live so far away from Walker that they have to drive their children to school? Expansion of the school to three forms whilst the place-allocation process is not reformed will only serve the cheats (and their landlords) and will put pressure on the local road system that already barely copes with the commuting children each day.

The obvious solution to leaatkinson's problem is for all schools to be schools that parents wish to send their children to. Sadly neither national nor local government seems to want to address this and issue. Michael Gove clearly has no idea how to fix existing schools and is banking on his new Free (but we're all paying for them!) schools magically fixing the education system. Meanwhile hard working heads and teachers are struggling along on the crumbs left from the education budget after expensive new bijou schools have been created.

we live literally 3 mins walk away from walker. our daughter didnt get a place last year and still hasnt been offered a place from the waiting list. not only is the problem that virtually every place is taken from people that rent next door to the school to get in but also that there is no other school nearby that she can go to. you have to live near to the church for st monicas (and be catholic of course!) and the next nearest school is st andrews in southgate which only has 30 children per year and again is a church school.

Re: The comments above: So disappointing that the families who rent out of necessity are getting yet another bashing. If only the people who leave these comments would take the trouble to ask the Head Teacher at Walker, she could confirm that this accounts for no more than 1 or 2 places a year at most - sometimes none (and yes, she checks!) LOTS of people rent long-term, most of the property around the school is tenanted. Not everybody in London has the luxury of home ownership - are you saying that these people are not equally entitled to a place? If I was in the rental sector, I'd make darn sure it was next to a good school and I suspect that the people who have commented would too. Walker has never had a 'catchment area', getting a place has always been a lottery with huge fluctuations in distance every year. Demand has grown and grown locally so please stop focusing on the so called 'cheats' and let's all campaign for a permanent expansion of the school instead. That's what's really needed!

The report clearly says that Ayfer Orhan said "“Expansion does not mean cramming more children into spaces that are too small or indeed losing facilities". It would be good to hear how she intends to create the required space to get Walker School up to the national average. A quick look on somewhere like Google maps, shows that short of relocating the school, the only options are the purchase of land belong to the Walker Cricket Ground, the car park adjacent to the school, Southgate Weld Tennis club's courts or land/property belonging to Christ Church Southgate. It would be interesting to hear which of these plots Enfield Council is planning the compulsory purchase of, as this is the only viable way of providing adequate space.

Without the expansion of the site on which this school currently sits, any expansion in student numbers will compromise the health and safety of the children, let alone being detrimental to the educational welfare of the children who attend the school.

ISallas wrote:
Re: The comments above: So disappointing that the families who rent out of necessity are getting yet another bashing. If only the people who leave these comments would take the trouble to ask the Head Teacher at Walker, she could confirm that this accounts for no more than 1 or 2 places a year at most - sometimes none (and yes, she checks!) LOTS of people rent long-term, most of the property around the school is tenanted. Not everybody in London has the luxury of home ownership - are you saying that these people are not equally entitled to a place? If I was in the rental sector, I'd make darn sure it was next to a good school and I suspect that the people who have commented would too. Walker has never had a 'catchment area', getting a place has always been a lottery with huge fluctuations in distance every year. Demand has grown and grown locally so please stop focusing on the so called 'cheats' and let's all campaign for a permanent expansion of the school instead. That's what's really needed!

I am not bashing the people who rent flats - if you read my comment, I say people who rent the flats to cheat the system - i.e. ones who rent to be close to the school, yet move away once the place is assured (while typically keeping their main residence). We have heard from many parents who practice this - they feel as though they have to because others cheat, and yet show no shame that they are breaking the law. It's not necessarily the ones who come from outside the borough, but the many are a few streets further who do this as well. How as demand 'grown and grown' locally when there has not been a significant increase in homes in the area?

ISallas wrote:

leeatkinson wrote:

ISallas wrote:
Re: The comments above: So disappointing that the families who rent out of necessity are getting yet another bashing. If only the people who leave these comments would take the trouble to ask the Head Teacher at Walker, she could confirm that this accounts for no more than 1 or 2 places a year at most - sometimes none (and yes, she checks!) LOTS of people rent long-term, most of the property around the school is tenanted. Not everybody in London has the luxury of home ownership - are you saying that these people are not equally entitled to a place? If I was in the rental sector, I'd make darn sure it was next to a good school and I suspect that the people who have commented would too. Walker has never had a 'catchment area', getting a place has always been a lottery with huge fluctuations in distance every year. Demand has grown and grown locally so please stop focusing on the so called 'cheats' and let's all campaign for a permanent expansion of the school instead. That's what's really needed!

I am not bashing the people who rent flats - if you read my comment, I say people who rent the flats to cheat the system - i.e. ones who rent to be close to the school, yet move away once the place is assured (while typically keeping their main residence). We have heard from many parents who practice this - they feel as though they have to because others cheat, and yet show no shame that they are breaking the law. It's not necessarily the ones who come from outside the borough, but the many are a few streets further who do this as well. How as demand 'grown and grown' locally when there has not been a significant increase in homes in the area?

Re: 'Grown & Grown" Birth rate figures have steeply increased since 2007 (ref: office for national statistics) There has been an increase of migrant families since the EU expansion. There are new flats on the high street (where MJ hire centre used to be) etc. etc. AND the School has records of all change of addresses so are in a good position to comment on mobility around admissions.

Taking into account the population increase, it does not explain the 'collapse' in the distance required to get a place this year. Of course, the schools do have addresses, and we are aware of how many changes that happen in the first year - with lots moving only a mile or so away. The solution is that siblings should not be given preferential treatment. That will not affect honest families only the ones who abuse the system.

Hi Lee! Actually it does explain it. More babies = more siblings (apparently it's the Recession affect) 37 this year caused the distance to shrink. And, I disagree, a Community school absolutely should give siblings priority. As a parent here for 10 years I can safely say that most of these moves are out of necessity. Even the most long-standing Walker families are not immune to divorce, bereavement or redundancy. Sometimes families are simply forced to move further away due to a change in circumstance. Why would anybody want to 'punish' these children for a major crisis or life event over which they have no control? Wrenching a child from the safe and familiar seems a cruel suggestion at a time when they may need it the most. (remember, these children will have become accustomed to the school over the years due to the sibling connection) I know you're disappointed Mr. Atkinson, but plonking a 4 year old in a Portakabin, in isolation, with no facitities and dubious safety provision, just because it's a more convenient distance away, is a second-rate Education and not in any child's best interest. There are much better interim solutions while the school expands. I don't want a tit for tat here, I genuinely think a strong, unified campaign for a swift rebuild to 3 form entry is the best way forward for everyone - but I fear it won't happen as long as these issues continue to dominate the dialogue.

ISallas wrote:
Hi Lee! Actually it does explain it. More babies = more siblings (apparently it's the Recession affect) 37 this year caused the distance to shrink. And, I disagree, a Community school absolutely should give siblings priority. As a parent here for 10 years I can safely say that most of these moves are out of necessity. Even the most long-standing Walker families are not immune to divorce, bereavement or redundancy. Sometimes families are simply forced to move further away due to a change in circumstance. Why would anybody want to 'punish' these children for a major crisis or life event over which they have no control? Wrenching a child from the safe and familiar seems a cruel suggestion at a time when they may need it the most. (remember, these children will have become accustomed to the school over the years due to the sibling connection) I know you're disappointed Mr. Atkinson, but plonking a 4 year old in a Portakabin, in isolation, with no facitities and dubious safety provision, just because it's a more convenient distance away, is a second-rate Education and not in any child's best interest. There are much better interim solutions while the school expands. I don't want a tit for tat here, I genuinely think a strong, unified campaign for a swift rebuild to 3 form entry is the best way forward for everyone - but I fear it won't happen as long as these issues continue to dominate the dialogue.

It should give priority to siblings only if their family continue to live in community, not for those that move within months of the the eldest sibling getting a place. Have you any proof to your claims that the majority of movements are due to issues you describe? We also have no proof to the claims of '1 or 2' cheaters (we know of at least 8 in the past three years, and we certainly haven't met anywhere near a 1/10 of the parents of the school.)

It is understandable that the genuinely-local parents want the best for their children, it's such a pity that they didn't do more for their community previously and allowed the cheating to continue. And of course, the cheats will be very vocal as they realise their 'investment' in renting for a few months is at risk if the rules are changed and they cannot get their other children in as well. They presumably feel the need to 'keep up' with the pressures of getting the best education for the children, yet cannot afford private education. These parents are doing so much damage to our community - such that our children have to go to different schools across the borough, will never have friends on the same street, and will be less healthy as the journey is too long to walk.

I only want a three-form school if it's for our community - why should I pay council tax and suffer from extra congestion so that it benefits the cheats?

To be honest, it is sad to see this issue setting parent against parent? If any of us were in the other's position we would be arguing our own current case against ourselves!
This situation has arisen wholly due to a lack of investment in state schools in the area, along with Enfield council (like many others) turning a blind eye to the use of short-term renting to secure both primary and secondary school places and an over-reliance on faith schools to provide additional school places (involving more hoop-jumping and the playing of another system).
Southgate and Palmers Green are wholly under-provided for in terms of primary and secondary school places. The argument for one bulge class at Walker school, whilst it may solve a minority of parents' problems in the short term, is not the battle we, as a community, should be fighting. Perhaps lobbying for a bulge class at a more suitable school (such as Westgrove or De Bohun) along with the guarantee of the whole class transferring to Walker School once the rebuild has been completed could be an alternative option? That way we can pool all our efforts in fighting for a accelerated permanent expansion and over-due refurbishment of this popular community school?

in reply to leeatkinson, you said 'the solution is that siblings should not be given preferential treatment''and that this will not affect honest families, only those that abuse the system' is completely wrong. I live 3/4 mile away and got into Walker over 7 years ago without abusing the system. Now from what you're saying, my daughter due to start next year should not be offered a place. Is that right? I was offered a place at Walker from the waiting list. And I haven't moved house in 12 years. How have I abused the system?

Peanut3 wrote:
in reply to leeatkinson, you said 'the solution is that siblings should not be given preferential treatment''and that this will not affect honest families, only those that abuse the system' is completely wrong. I live 3/4 mile away and got into Walker over 7 years ago without abusing the system. Now from what you're saying, my daughter due to start next year should not be offered a place. Is that right? I was offered a place at Walker from the waiting list. And I haven't moved house in 12 years. How have I abused the system?

My apologies, I didn't fully explain myself. If you do not move any further away from the school, I think it's fair the younger siblings should still get a place. However, if one moves out, they forfeit their place.

Though I do feel that if the current parents did more about the cheating, then we wouldn't be in this position. Perhaps there may be an oversubscription of siblings next year which could affect parents like you when others suddenly move to the flats once again?

Unfortunately extra space at De Bohun it not a solution for parents who live in Southgate Green and commute to work. I wish the friends of Walker Group would stop suggesting this a though it is a viable solution. Space has to be provided at closer schools. De Bohun is the 25th closest school! Is it fair to expect a 4 year to leave the house at 6.30am, in order to be dropped at a childminders near a school which takes 40-45 minutes to commute to via public transport. Not every family has or even wants 2 cars, so commuting this distance to school is not an option.

Jane100 wrote:
Unfortunately extra space at De Bohun it not a solution for parents who live in Southgate Green and commute to work. I wish the friends of Walker Group would stop suggesting this a though it is a viable solution. Space has to be provided at closer schools. De Bohun is the 25th closest school! Is it fair to expect a 4 year to leave the house at 6.30am, in order to be dropped at a childminders near a school which takes 40-45 minutes to commute to via public transport. Not every family has or even wants 2 cars, so commuting this distance to school is not an option.

Hi Jane, WPAG are not suggesting DeBohun for the Walker 'bulge' - it appears in the press article as a comparison in terms of space (it's the largest in the borough) and is referenced in terms of the LA looking at provision generally. We are, however, asking the LA to specifically look at West Grove as an interim solution given the space and relative proximity. It's likely it would have featured in many of the 6 choices for families in this area - especially if you live on the periphery (eg.Lakes Estate) The reality for many of us in this area is that a place at your closest school is, and always has been, a lottery. Walker is by far my closest school and I didn't get a first round offer 10 years ago at ANY local school. I scrambled to get a place at Salcombe and paid a deposit there. I was eventually offered St.Andrews (which I accepted) After an anxious wait, I got in to Walker on the 2nd round of offers. If I was applying today I wouldn't stand a chance at ANY local schools at all, demand is so great. This has been the situation for many, many years in our area and is only making headlines now because they are 100 places short in Enfield and we are vocal in letting the Council know we're all fed up with their failure to address the chronic shortage of Primary places in Southgate. My neighbours kids are scattered all over the place, Oasis, DeBohun and private schools like Keble & Lochinver and enough is enough! And it's even worse when it comes to Secondary so that's a battle that needs to be fought too. Together.

As per previous posts on this topic my wife and i are local (0.27 & 0.30 miles respectively) residents to the school for over (25 & 20yrs each) and cannot get our son into the reception this yr. I think that the problem is not siblings but the system, i feel that to ask a parent to drop children at numerous schools is unfair and its too late to change the rule in retrospect. (on a side note- reason siblings is now so high is those temporary renting or buying will only do so if they have more than 1 child to make financial sense vs private hence the sibling rate is now so high). The aim must be to stop those that abuse the system, as it is commonly known. Those with rental/permanent accomodation of less than say 3 years or who have a second permanent family address. lets all be quite frank, for an intake of only 60 children each year, it would not take a great deal of time to investigate those genuine and those not. If then i am unable to get in then so be it, but at present the system is flawed and whilst it is, my regret is not being a cheat, in order to secure peace of mind for my family and to keep them schooled in the community both myself and my wife were raised in. In the mean time a solution needs to be found but similarly why should my son, just because he was born in June, this side of september miss out on walker compared to say a child born 3 months later when i would presume the council will change the rules ??