School places crisis: I might have to leave my job, says nurse

Bournemouth Echo: LIVES TURNED UPSIDE DOWN: Clare Scott and her sons Ben, four, and, left, Josh, two LIVES TURNED UPSIDE DOWN: Clare Scott and her sons Ben, four, and, left, Josh, two

A SENIOR nurse fears she will have to leave the job she loves and uproot her family because her child has been allocated a school place miles from their home.

Clare and Richard Scott, of Forest View Road in West Way, were devastated to learn that their four-year-old son Ben had been given a school place at Heathlands Primary School in West Howe.

They had applied for Epiphany, Queens Park and Moordown St John’s, which are all around 0.6 of a mile from their home. There are 14 schools closer to their home than Heathlands, which is around three miles away.

Bournemouth council has indicated it will provide a taxi service to transport Ben to and from school but there is no way either parent can travel with him and still be on time for their jobs at the Royal Bournemouth Hospital in time to start work.

Clare, 32, said she can see no other realistic alternative to giving up her job at the oncology and haematology department.

She said: “When we saw that Ben had been allocated a place at Heathlands, our reaction was one of disbelief. Initially we thought there must have been a mistake. We had never even heard of Heathlands.

“Our plan was for my husband to take Ben to school before starting work but Heathlands is in the opposite direction so he won’t be able to do that now.

“I absolutely love my job, I was the first ever newly qualified nurse my boss took on 10 years ago and I’ve been there ever since. I would be devastated if I had to give it up but I just can’t see what else we can do.

“Obviously I will do anything for my children but as it’s my chosen career and I’ve been there so long, leaving is not something I want to do.

“Plus financially we will not be able to keep this house on one wage so we may also have to move. Our lives have been turned upside down by this ridiculous decision, I don’t think there is a day since we found out that I haven’t cried.”

Comments (46)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:16am Wed 16 May 12

ILOVEBOURNEMOUTH says...

By the way, who takes care of your two year old?

I wrote this comment on the story, like yours:
"Such a shame good luck. Legally a child doesnt need to be in school until they turn 5. (In Europe I heard 6?)You could apply to your chosen school for next year. Just means the child will miss out on reception. Maybe a blessing though? You get more time with them."

Not sure if it's relevent to you though, due to your work.
By the way, who takes care of your two year old? I wrote this comment on the story, like yours: "Such a shame good luck. Legally a child doesnt need to be in school until they turn 5. (In Europe I heard 6?)You could apply to your chosen school for next year. Just means the child will miss out on reception. Maybe a blessing though? You get more time with them." Not sure if it's relevent to you though, due to your work. ILOVEBOURNEMOUTH
  • Score: 0

9:17am Wed 16 May 12

BmthNewshound says...

This is a crazy situation. The impact of this decision doesn't only affect the Scotts, Bournemouth hospital risks loosing an experienced nurse working in a specialist field. They'd have to go through the cost of recruiting and training someone to take Clares place.
.
Surely in cases like this where a key worker is put in the position of choosing between her job and her childs welfare common sense should prevail.
This is a crazy situation. The impact of this decision doesn't only affect the Scotts, Bournemouth hospital risks loosing an experienced nurse working in a specialist field. They'd have to go through the cost of recruiting and training someone to take Clares place. . Surely in cases like this where a key worker is put in the position of choosing between her job and her childs welfare common sense should prevail. BmthNewshound
  • Score: 0

9:55am Wed 16 May 12

Wintonian says...

But the catchment school for Forest View Road is Winton Primary, which offered to everybody who asked for it. So one can only presume that the family declined to request their nearby school.
If they had, presumably they would have been allocated it.
But the catchment school for Forest View Road is Winton Primary, which offered to everybody who asked for it. So one can only presume that the family declined to request their nearby school. If they had, presumably they would have been allocated it. Wintonian
  • Score: 0

10:03am Wed 16 May 12

High Treason says...

"Bournemouth council has indicated it will provide a taxi service"
The mind boggles!
"Bournemouth council has indicated it will provide a taxi service" The mind boggles! High Treason
  • Score: 0

10:14am Wed 16 May 12

Moordown1 says...

Wintonian wrote:
But the catchment school for Forest View Road is Winton Primary, which offered to everybody who asked for it. So one can only presume that the family declined to request their nearby school. If they had, presumably they would have been allocated it.
Children also do have a church catchment school - in this case Epiphany, and Forest View road is an equal distance from Epiphany, Queens Park, Moordown St Johns and Winton.
[quote][p][bold]Wintonian[/bold] wrote: But the catchment school for Forest View Road is Winton Primary, which offered to everybody who asked for it. So one can only presume that the family declined to request their nearby school. If they had, presumably they would have been allocated it.[/p][/quote]Children also do have a church catchment school - in this case Epiphany, and Forest View road is an equal distance from Epiphany, Queens Park, Moordown St Johns and Winton. Moordown1
  • Score: 0

10:32am Wed 16 May 12

rollwithit says...

Moordown1 wrote:
Wintonian wrote:
But the catchment school for Forest View Road is Winton Primary, which offered to everybody who asked for it. So one can only presume that the family declined to request their nearby school. If they had, presumably they would have been allocated it.
Children also do have a church catchment school - in this case Epiphany, and Forest View road is an equal distance from Epiphany, Queens Park, Moordown St Johns and Winton.
two stories in one day about parents pleading their case because they didn't apply to their catchment schools. You've only yourselves to blame! If you had applied to your catchment school as well as Epiphany you would not have this problem now. Epiphany is a church school as their admissions criteria are very clear. You chose to risk not choosing your catchment school and now the council have no choice but to offer you a place where there are some. And for your information Moordown1, whether the distance is the same to all schools is irrelevant. Catchment is all that counts for school places. Why does these parents insist on moaning to the press when they end up with a mess of THEIR OWN MAKING????
[quote][p][bold]Moordown1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wintonian[/bold] wrote: But the catchment school for Forest View Road is Winton Primary, which offered to everybody who asked for it. So one can only presume that the family declined to request their nearby school. If they had, presumably they would have been allocated it.[/p][/quote]Children also do have a church catchment school - in this case Epiphany, and Forest View road is an equal distance from Epiphany, Queens Park, Moordown St Johns and Winton.[/p][/quote]two stories in one day about parents pleading their case because they didn't apply to their catchment schools. You've only yourselves to blame! If you had applied to your catchment school as well as Epiphany you would not have this problem now. Epiphany is a church school as their admissions criteria are very clear. You chose to risk not choosing your catchment school and now the council have no choice but to offer you a place where there are some. And for your information Moordown1, whether the distance is the same to all schools is irrelevant. Catchment is all that counts for school places. Why does these parents insist on moaning to the press when they end up with a mess of THEIR OWN MAKING???? rollwithit
  • Score: 0

11:05am Wed 16 May 12

ILOVEBOURNEMOUTH says...

" They had applied for Epiphany, Queens Park
and Moordown St John’s, which are all around
0.6 of a mile from their home"

Which part of this dont the illiterate posters understand?

They DID apply so when you write " Why does these parents insist
on moaning to the press " you might wanna brush on yr own English. Or are you Polish or something? Maybe that is why children are not being offered places. Population overload.
" They had applied for Epiphany, Queens Park and Moordown St John’s, which are all around 0.6 of a mile from their home" Which part of this dont the illiterate posters understand? They DID apply so when you write " Why does these parents insist on moaning to the press " you might wanna brush on yr own English. Or are you Polish or something? Maybe that is why children are not being offered places. Population overload. ILOVEBOURNEMOUTH
  • Score: 0

11:10am Wed 16 May 12

rollwithit says...

ILOVEBOURNEMOUTH wrote:
" They had applied for Epiphany, Queens Park
and Moordown St John’s, which are all around
0.6 of a mile from their home"

Which part of this dont the illiterate posters understand?

They DID apply so when you write " Why does these parents insist
on moaning to the press " you might wanna brush on yr own English. Or are you Polish or something? Maybe that is why children are not being offered places. Population overload.
Queens Park and Moordown are out of catchment so it appears that the only catchment schhol they applied to was Epiphany. Hence my comment about church school criteria. They clearly did not apply for their catchment non-church school. I think you'll find literacy is not a problem for me as a graduate with a 1st class degree. Perhaps if you had taken the time to read the article and my comments fully, then actuallly digested them, you would see that my comments are perfectly valid.
[quote][p][bold]ILOVEBOURNEMOUTH[/bold] wrote: " They had applied for Epiphany, Queens Park and Moordown St John’s, which are all around 0.6 of a mile from their home" Which part of this dont the illiterate posters understand? They DID apply so when you write " Why does these parents insist on moaning to the press " you might wanna brush on yr own English. Or are you Polish or something? Maybe that is why children are not being offered places. Population overload.[/p][/quote]Queens Park and Moordown are out of catchment so it appears that the only catchment schhol they applied to was Epiphany. Hence my comment about church school criteria. They clearly did not apply for their catchment non-church school. I think you'll find literacy is not a problem for me as a graduate with a 1st class degree. Perhaps if you had taken the time to read the article and my comments fully, then actuallly digested them, you would see that my comments are perfectly valid. rollwithit
  • Score: 0

11:48am Wed 16 May 12

ILOVEBOURNEMOUTH says...

The first thing these schools tell you when you visit with your child is " we are diverse here and we speak 50 languages at this school "... Maybe that's the problem!
The first thing these schools tell you when you visit with your child is " we are diverse here and we speak 50 languages at this school "... Maybe that's the problem! ILOVEBOURNEMOUTH
  • Score: 0

11:53am Wed 16 May 12

Angry bird 2 says...

rollwithit wrote:
ILOVEBOURNEMOUTH wrote:
" They had applied for Epiphany, Queens Park
and Moordown St John’s, which are all around
0.6 of a mile from their home"

Which part of this dont the illiterate posters understand?

They DID apply so when you write " Why does these parents insist
on moaning to the press " you might wanna brush on yr own English. Or are you Polish or something? Maybe that is why children are not being offered places. Population overload.
Queens Park and Moordown are out of catchment so it appears that the only catchment schhol they applied to was Epiphany. Hence my comment about church school criteria. They clearly did not apply for their catchment non-church school. I think you'll find literacy is not a problem for me as a graduate with a 1st class degree. Perhaps if you had taken the time to read the article and my comments fully, then actuallly digested them, you would see that my comments are perfectly valid.
You may find the family had good reason for not initially putting there catchment school & the council admissions team may of been aware of this. They have put there 3 closest schools including epiphany that they are in catchment for! What else can they do?!
[quote][p][bold]rollwithit[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ILOVEBOURNEMOUTH[/bold] wrote: " They had applied for Epiphany, Queens Park and Moordown St John’s, which are all around 0.6 of a mile from their home" Which part of this dont the illiterate posters understand? They DID apply so when you write " Why does these parents insist on moaning to the press " you might wanna brush on yr own English. Or are you Polish or something? Maybe that is why children are not being offered places. Population overload.[/p][/quote]Queens Park and Moordown are out of catchment so it appears that the only catchment schhol they applied to was Epiphany. Hence my comment about church school criteria. They clearly did not apply for their catchment non-church school. I think you'll find literacy is not a problem for me as a graduate with a 1st class degree. Perhaps if you had taken the time to read the article and my comments fully, then actuallly digested them, you would see that my comments are perfectly valid.[/p][/quote]You may find the family had good reason for not initially putting there catchment school & the council admissions team may of been aware of this. They have put there 3 closest schools including epiphany that they are in catchment for! What else can they do?! Angry bird 2
  • Score: 0

11:54am Wed 16 May 12

Moordown1 says...

It does seem that had every parent in Bournemouth placed their catchment school in their preference list this would not have solved the problem. The schools just are not where the families are living. The council are aware of how many children are being born in the borough, and also which areas are increasing or decreasing in population. It seems very short sighted not to have a more long term view on such an important and emotive issue as primary school education. It was a mistake to close the Townsend school which would have made a big difference to those parents with children living in the East of Bournemouth.
It does seem that had every parent in Bournemouth placed their catchment school in their preference list this would not have solved the problem. The schools just are not where the families are living. The council are aware of how many children are being born in the borough, and also which areas are increasing or decreasing in population. It seems very short sighted not to have a more long term view on such an important and emotive issue as primary school education. It was a mistake to close the Townsend school which would have made a big difference to those parents with children living in the East of Bournemouth. Moordown1
  • Score: 0

12:34pm Wed 16 May 12

penhale says...

Oh dear, Clare Scott has had me in tears here, because her offspring has to go to a school 3 miles away instead of 0.6 miles away she is going to give up her job and lose her home, get a life woman, all the problems millions of others are suffering and you believe your life is going to end because your nipper has to travel three miles, to make it worse the council have offered a taxi service which I and many others have to pay for, god knows what you will do if your family suffers a real crisis. pathetic.
Oh dear, Clare Scott has had me in tears here, because her offspring has to go to a school 3 miles away instead of 0.6 miles away she is going to give up her job and lose her home, get a life woman, all the problems millions of others are suffering and you believe your life is going to end because your nipper has to travel three miles, to make it worse the council have offered a taxi service which I and many others have to pay for, god knows what you will do if your family suffers a real crisis. pathetic. penhale
  • Score: 0

12:39pm Wed 16 May 12

catlady73 says...

"Rollwithit" please be aware that school places are not offered on catchment ONLY!!!! There are a number of other criteria, alongside catchment, that are dependent upon whether a place is offered or not.
As for the taxi - well done Bournemouth Council but is it really appropriate for a child of this age to travel to school in a car with a stranger??? I think not!
"Rollwithit" please be aware that school places are not offered on catchment ONLY!!!! There are a number of other criteria, alongside catchment, that are dependent upon whether a place is offered or not. As for the taxi - well done Bournemouth Council but is it really appropriate for a child of this age to travel to school in a car with a stranger??? I think not! catlady73
  • Score: 0

12:43pm Wed 16 May 12

catlady73 says...

penhale wrote:
Oh dear, Clare Scott has had me in tears here, because her offspring has to go to a school 3 miles away instead of 0.6 miles away she is going to give up her job and lose her home, get a life woman, all the problems millions of others are suffering and you believe your life is going to end because your nipper has to travel three miles, to make it worse the council have offered a taxi service which I and many others have to pay for, god knows what you will do if your family suffers a real crisis. pathetic.
Do you really need to be so viscious and nasty???? I totally understand this parents point of view. Considering just how many parents are living off the state as they say they cannot work due to children, we should be praisinf and supporting the fact that both parents go out to work and simply want to be able to take their child to and from school - what is so wrong about that?
[quote][p][bold]penhale[/bold] wrote: Oh dear, Clare Scott has had me in tears here, because her offspring has to go to a school 3 miles away instead of 0.6 miles away she is going to give up her job and lose her home, get a life woman, all the problems millions of others are suffering and you believe your life is going to end because your nipper has to travel three miles, to make it worse the council have offered a taxi service which I and many others have to pay for, god knows what you will do if your family suffers a real crisis. pathetic.[/p][/quote]Do you really need to be so viscious and nasty???? I totally understand this parents point of view. Considering just how many parents are living off the state as they say they cannot work due to children, we should be praisinf and supporting the fact that both parents go out to work and simply want to be able to take their child to and from school - what is so wrong about that? catlady73
  • Score: 0

12:46pm Wed 16 May 12

catlady73 says...

Perhaps I should also point out that there are a number of new homes being built in the area, for example Dave Wells development opposite Castlepoint and the catchment school for this would've been Townsend - however Bournemouth Council chose to close that 'failing' school without concern for the needs of the local community! How very stupid of them.
Perhaps I should also point out that there are a number of new homes being built in the area, for example Dave Wells development opposite Castlepoint and the catchment school for this would've been Townsend - however Bournemouth Council chose to close that 'failing' school without concern for the needs of the local community! How very stupid of them. catlady73
  • Score: 0

12:49pm Wed 16 May 12

ILOVEBOURNEMOUTH says...

Hear hear catlady! Agree on the most part, however there are instances where SOME single parents are simply unable to work due to raising children by themselves full time.
Hear hear catlady! Agree on the most part, however there are instances where SOME single parents are simply unable to work due to raising children by themselves full time. ILOVEBOURNEMOUTH
  • Score: 0

12:50pm Wed 16 May 12

ILOVEBOURNEMOUTH says...

Hear hear catlady! Agree on the most part, however there are instances where SOME single parents are simply unable to work due to raising children by themselves full time.
Hear hear catlady! Agree on the most part, however there are instances where SOME single parents are simply unable to work due to raising children by themselves full time. ILOVEBOURNEMOUTH
  • Score: 0

12:51pm Wed 16 May 12

ILOVEBOURNEMOUTH says...

Hear hear catlady! Agree on the most part, however there are instances where SOME single parents are simply unable to work due to raising children by themselves full time.
Hear hear catlady! Agree on the most part, however there are instances where SOME single parents are simply unable to work due to raising children by themselves full time. ILOVEBOURNEMOUTH
  • Score: 0

12:52pm Wed 16 May 12

penhale says...

catlady73 wrote:
penhale wrote:
Oh dear, Clare Scott has had me in tears here, because her offspring has to go to a school 3 miles away instead of 0.6 miles away she is going to give up her job and lose her home, get a life woman, all the problems millions of others are suffering and you believe your life is going to end because your nipper has to travel three miles, to make it worse the council have offered a taxi service which I and many others have to pay for, god knows what you will do if your family suffers a real crisis. pathetic.
Do you really need to be so viscious and nasty???? I totally understand this parents point of view. Considering just how many parents are living off the state as they say they cannot work due to children, we should be praisinf and supporting the fact that both parents go out to work and simply want to be able to take their child to and from school - what is so wrong about that?
I was born in the late 1940s, back then if people couldn't afford kids they didn't have them until they could, now couples knock out kids like a conveyer belt then moan when they hit a small problem and expect other hard working people to support them.
It's not a case of being nasty, it's a case of facing reality, this is why the country is in such a state, councils spend most of our money supporting other peoples kids.
They have two wages coming in and their still not happy, I supported my wife and children on one wage, claimed no benefits and we struggled but we got through, people today want a life of luxury and other people to pay for it.
[quote][p][bold]catlady73[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]penhale[/bold] wrote: Oh dear, Clare Scott has had me in tears here, because her offspring has to go to a school 3 miles away instead of 0.6 miles away she is going to give up her job and lose her home, get a life woman, all the problems millions of others are suffering and you believe your life is going to end because your nipper has to travel three miles, to make it worse the council have offered a taxi service which I and many others have to pay for, god knows what you will do if your family suffers a real crisis. pathetic.[/p][/quote]Do you really need to be so viscious and nasty???? I totally understand this parents point of view. Considering just how many parents are living off the state as they say they cannot work due to children, we should be praisinf and supporting the fact that both parents go out to work and simply want to be able to take their child to and from school - what is so wrong about that?[/p][/quote]I was born in the late 1940s, back then if people couldn't afford kids they didn't have them until they could, now couples knock out kids like a conveyer belt then moan when they hit a small problem and expect other hard working people to support them. It's not a case of being nasty, it's a case of facing reality, this is why the country is in such a state, councils spend most of our money supporting other peoples kids. They have two wages coming in and their still not happy, I supported my wife and children on one wage, claimed no benefits and we struggled but we got through, people today want a life of luxury and other people to pay for it. penhale
  • Score: 0

1:00pm Wed 16 May 12

catlady73 says...

ILOVEBOURNEMOUTH wrote:
Hear hear catlady! Agree on the most part, however there are instances where SOME single parents are simply unable to work due to raising children by themselves full time.
Sorry, ILOVEBOURNEMOUTH, quite right, I do appreciate that some are simply unable to work. :-)
[quote][p][bold]ILOVEBOURNEMOUTH[/bold] wrote: Hear hear catlady! Agree on the most part, however there are instances where SOME single parents are simply unable to work due to raising children by themselves full time.[/p][/quote]Sorry, ILOVEBOURNEMOUTH, quite right, I do appreciate that some are simply unable to work. :-) catlady73
  • Score: 0

1:04pm Wed 16 May 12

catlady73 says...

penhale wrote:
catlady73 wrote:
penhale wrote: Oh dear, Clare Scott has had me in tears here, because her offspring has to go to a school 3 miles away instead of 0.6 miles away she is going to give up her job and lose her home, get a life woman, all the problems millions of others are suffering and you believe your life is going to end because your nipper has to travel three miles, to make it worse the council have offered a taxi service which I and many others have to pay for, god knows what you will do if your family suffers a real crisis. pathetic.
Do you really need to be so viscious and nasty???? I totally understand this parents point of view. Considering just how many parents are living off the state as they say they cannot work due to children, we should be praisinf and supporting the fact that both parents go out to work and simply want to be able to take their child to and from school - what is so wrong about that?
I was born in the late 1940s, back then if people couldn't afford kids they didn't have them until they could, now couples knock out kids like a conveyer belt then moan when they hit a small problem and expect other hard working people to support them. It's not a case of being nasty, it's a case of facing reality, this is why the country is in such a state, councils spend most of our money supporting other peoples kids. They have two wages coming in and their still not happy, I supported my wife and children on one wage, claimed no benefits and we struggled but we got through, people today want a life of luxury and other people to pay for it.
Obviously times have changed since the 1940's - women were EXPECTED to stay home with the children, with most families being quite large back then. The roads were quieter and the neighbourhoods safer so kids were able to go to and from school with their siblings! That is not always possible in todays diverse society where extended family are not always close by to help with childcare. As for benefits, I believe they weren't readily available in the 1940's! With rising living costs etc I understand why this family are unhappy. At least they ARE trying to do their best!!!!!
[quote][p][bold]penhale[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]catlady73[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]penhale[/bold] wrote: Oh dear, Clare Scott has had me in tears here, because her offspring has to go to a school 3 miles away instead of 0.6 miles away she is going to give up her job and lose her home, get a life woman, all the problems millions of others are suffering and you believe your life is going to end because your nipper has to travel three miles, to make it worse the council have offered a taxi service which I and many others have to pay for, god knows what you will do if your family suffers a real crisis. pathetic.[/p][/quote]Do you really need to be so viscious and nasty???? I totally understand this parents point of view. Considering just how many parents are living off the state as they say they cannot work due to children, we should be praisinf and supporting the fact that both parents go out to work and simply want to be able to take their child to and from school - what is so wrong about that?[/p][/quote]I was born in the late 1940s, back then if people couldn't afford kids they didn't have them until they could, now couples knock out kids like a conveyer belt then moan when they hit a small problem and expect other hard working people to support them. It's not a case of being nasty, it's a case of facing reality, this is why the country is in such a state, councils spend most of our money supporting other peoples kids. They have two wages coming in and their still not happy, I supported my wife and children on one wage, claimed no benefits and we struggled but we got through, people today want a life of luxury and other people to pay for it.[/p][/quote]Obviously times have changed since the 1940's - women were EXPECTED to stay home with the children, with most families being quite large back then. The roads were quieter and the neighbourhoods safer so kids were able to go to and from school with their siblings! That is not always possible in todays diverse society where extended family are not always close by to help with childcare. As for benefits, I believe they weren't readily available in the 1940's! With rising living costs etc I understand why this family are unhappy. At least they ARE trying to do their best!!!!! catlady73
  • Score: 0

1:18pm Wed 16 May 12

penhale says...

catlady73 wrote:
penhale wrote:
catlady73 wrote:
penhale wrote: Oh dear, Clare Scott has had me in tears here, because her offspring has to go to a school 3 miles away instead of 0.6 miles away she is going to give up her job and lose her home, get a life woman, all the problems millions of others are suffering and you believe your life is going to end because your nipper has to travel three miles, to make it worse the council have offered a taxi service which I and many others have to pay for, god knows what you will do if your family suffers a real crisis. pathetic.
Do you really need to be so viscious and nasty???? I totally understand this parents point of view. Considering just how many parents are living off the state as they say they cannot work due to children, we should be praisinf and supporting the fact that both parents go out to work and simply want to be able to take their child to and from school - what is so wrong about that?
I was born in the late 1940s, back then if people couldn't afford kids they didn't have them until they could, now couples knock out kids like a conveyer belt then moan when they hit a small problem and expect other hard working people to support them. It's not a case of being nasty, it's a case of facing reality, this is why the country is in such a state, councils spend most of our money supporting other peoples kids. They have two wages coming in and their still not happy, I supported my wife and children on one wage, claimed no benefits and we struggled but we got through, people today want a life of luxury and other people to pay for it.
Obviously times have changed since the 1940's - women were EXPECTED to stay home with the children, with most families being quite large back then. The roads were quieter and the neighbourhoods safer so kids were able to go to and from school with their siblings! That is not always possible in todays diverse society where extended family are not always close by to help with childcare. As for benefits, I believe they weren't readily available in the 1940's! With rising living costs etc I understand why this family are unhappy. At least they ARE trying to do their best!!!!!
Yea, your right, times have changed but for the worse, the old clap trap about women expected to stay at home may be true for some but not all, difference was people lived by their means, these days people live by what they can scrounge from the state .
This family may well be unhappy, they will be even more unhappy if they have to sell their home for such a pathetic reason.
If she has just qualified as a senior nurse at RBH she will know that she can apply for flex time starting if she has kids so no need to give up her job then.
If she gives up her job and sells her house she still has to take her kids to school so not much changes except less money and no home.
[quote][p][bold]catlady73[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]penhale[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]catlady73[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]penhale[/bold] wrote: Oh dear, Clare Scott has had me in tears here, because her offspring has to go to a school 3 miles away instead of 0.6 miles away she is going to give up her job and lose her home, get a life woman, all the problems millions of others are suffering and you believe your life is going to end because your nipper has to travel three miles, to make it worse the council have offered a taxi service which I and many others have to pay for, god knows what you will do if your family suffers a real crisis. pathetic.[/p][/quote]Do you really need to be so viscious and nasty???? I totally understand this parents point of view. Considering just how many parents are living off the state as they say they cannot work due to children, we should be praisinf and supporting the fact that both parents go out to work and simply want to be able to take their child to and from school - what is so wrong about that?[/p][/quote]I was born in the late 1940s, back then if people couldn't afford kids they didn't have them until they could, now couples knock out kids like a conveyer belt then moan when they hit a small problem and expect other hard working people to support them. It's not a case of being nasty, it's a case of facing reality, this is why the country is in such a state, councils spend most of our money supporting other peoples kids. They have two wages coming in and their still not happy, I supported my wife and children on one wage, claimed no benefits and we struggled but we got through, people today want a life of luxury and other people to pay for it.[/p][/quote]Obviously times have changed since the 1940's - women were EXPECTED to stay home with the children, with most families being quite large back then. The roads were quieter and the neighbourhoods safer so kids were able to go to and from school with their siblings! That is not always possible in todays diverse society where extended family are not always close by to help with childcare. As for benefits, I believe they weren't readily available in the 1940's! With rising living costs etc I understand why this family are unhappy. At least they ARE trying to do their best!!!!![/p][/quote]Yea, your right, times have changed but for the worse, the old clap trap about women expected to stay at home may be true for some but not all, difference was people lived by their means, these days people live by what they can scrounge from the state . This family may well be unhappy, they will be even more unhappy if they have to sell their home for such a pathetic reason. If she has just qualified as a senior nurse at RBH she will know that she can apply for flex time starting if she has kids so no need to give up her job then. If she gives up her job and sells her house she still has to take her kids to school so not much changes except less money and no home. penhale
  • Score: 0

1:23pm Wed 16 May 12

catlady73 says...

penhale wrote:
catlady73 wrote:
penhale wrote:
catlady73 wrote:
penhale wrote: Oh dear, Clare Scott has had me in tears here, because her offspring has to go to a school 3 miles away instead of 0.6 miles away she is going to give up her job and lose her home, get a life woman, all the problems millions of others are suffering and you believe your life is going to end because your nipper has to travel three miles, to make it worse the council have offered a taxi service which I and many others have to pay for, god knows what you will do if your family suffers a real crisis. pathetic.
Do you really need to be so viscious and nasty???? I totally understand this parents point of view. Considering just how many parents are living off the state as they say they cannot work due to children, we should be praisinf and supporting the fact that both parents go out to work and simply want to be able to take their child to and from school - what is so wrong about that?
I was born in the late 1940s, back then if people couldn't afford kids they didn't have them until they could, now couples knock out kids like a conveyer belt then moan when they hit a small problem and expect other hard working people to support them. It's not a case of being nasty, it's a case of facing reality, this is why the country is in such a state, councils spend most of our money supporting other peoples kids. They have two wages coming in and their still not happy, I supported my wife and children on one wage, claimed no benefits and we struggled but we got through, people today want a life of luxury and other people to pay for it.
Obviously times have changed since the 1940's - women were EXPECTED to stay home with the children, with most families being quite large back then. The roads were quieter and the neighbourhoods safer so kids were able to go to and from school with their siblings! That is not always possible in todays diverse society where extended family are not always close by to help with childcare. As for benefits, I believe they weren't readily available in the 1940's! With rising living costs etc I understand why this family are unhappy. At least they ARE trying to do their best!!!!!
Yea, your right, times have changed but for the worse, the old clap trap about women expected to stay at home may be true for some but not all, difference was people lived by their means, these days people live by what they can scrounge from the state . This family may well be unhappy, they will be even more unhappy if they have to sell their home for such a pathetic reason. If she has just qualified as a senior nurse at RBH she will know that she can apply for flex time starting if she has kids so no need to give up her job then. If she gives up her job and sells her house she still has to take her kids to school so not much changes except less money and no home.
I'm sorry but you don't get it do you?? She is a working mum, she has been in her job for 10 years if you had read it correctly. Pardon me for saying but at least this mum is getting out there and having a career, she is not scrounging off the state at all!!!! All she wants is a bit of fairness from the council to enable her to be able to take her child to her nearby school in order that she may then be able to go to work. Quite rightly so too! How about picking on the lazy so and so's that can't be bothered to work instead. Give this mum a break.
[quote][p][bold]penhale[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]catlady73[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]penhale[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]catlady73[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]penhale[/bold] wrote: Oh dear, Clare Scott has had me in tears here, because her offspring has to go to a school 3 miles away instead of 0.6 miles away she is going to give up her job and lose her home, get a life woman, all the problems millions of others are suffering and you believe your life is going to end because your nipper has to travel three miles, to make it worse the council have offered a taxi service which I and many others have to pay for, god knows what you will do if your family suffers a real crisis. pathetic.[/p][/quote]Do you really need to be so viscious and nasty???? I totally understand this parents point of view. Considering just how many parents are living off the state as they say they cannot work due to children, we should be praisinf and supporting the fact that both parents go out to work and simply want to be able to take their child to and from school - what is so wrong about that?[/p][/quote]I was born in the late 1940s, back then if people couldn't afford kids they didn't have them until they could, now couples knock out kids like a conveyer belt then moan when they hit a small problem and expect other hard working people to support them. It's not a case of being nasty, it's a case of facing reality, this is why the country is in such a state, councils spend most of our money supporting other peoples kids. They have two wages coming in and their still not happy, I supported my wife and children on one wage, claimed no benefits and we struggled but we got through, people today want a life of luxury and other people to pay for it.[/p][/quote]Obviously times have changed since the 1940's - women were EXPECTED to stay home with the children, with most families being quite large back then. The roads were quieter and the neighbourhoods safer so kids were able to go to and from school with their siblings! That is not always possible in todays diverse society where extended family are not always close by to help with childcare. As for benefits, I believe they weren't readily available in the 1940's! With rising living costs etc I understand why this family are unhappy. At least they ARE trying to do their best!!!!![/p][/quote]Yea, your right, times have changed but for the worse, the old clap trap about women expected to stay at home may be true for some but not all, difference was people lived by their means, these days people live by what they can scrounge from the state . This family may well be unhappy, they will be even more unhappy if they have to sell their home for such a pathetic reason. If she has just qualified as a senior nurse at RBH she will know that she can apply for flex time starting if she has kids so no need to give up her job then. If she gives up her job and sells her house she still has to take her kids to school so not much changes except less money and no home.[/p][/quote]I'm sorry but you don't get it do you?? She is a working mum, she has been in her job for 10 years if you had read it correctly. Pardon me for saying but at least this mum is getting out there and having a career, she is not scrounging off the state at all!!!! All she wants is a bit of fairness from the council to enable her to be able to take her child to her nearby school in order that she may then be able to go to work. Quite rightly so too! How about picking on the lazy so and so's that can't be bothered to work instead. Give this mum a break. catlady73
  • Score: 0

1:30pm Wed 16 May 12

Moordown1 says...

catlady73 wrote:
penhale wrote:
catlady73 wrote:
penhale wrote:
catlady73 wrote:
penhale wrote: Oh dear, Clare Scott has had me in tears here, because her offspring has to go to a school 3 miles away instead of 0.6 miles away she is going to give up her job and lose her home, get a life woman, all the problems millions of others are suffering and you believe your life is going to end because your nipper has to travel three miles, to make it worse the council have offered a taxi service which I and many others have to pay for, god knows what you will do if your family suffers a real crisis. pathetic.
Do you really need to be so viscious and nasty???? I totally understand this parents point of view. Considering just how many parents are living off the state as they say they cannot work due to children, we should be praisinf and supporting the fact that both parents go out to work and simply want to be able to take their child to and from school - what is so wrong about that?
I was born in the late 1940s, back then if people couldn't afford kids they didn't have them until they could, now couples knock out kids like a conveyer belt then moan when they hit a small problem and expect other hard working people to support them. It's not a case of being nasty, it's a case of facing reality, this is why the country is in such a state, councils spend most of our money supporting other peoples kids. They have two wages coming in and their still not happy, I supported my wife and children on one wage, claimed no benefits and we struggled but we got through, people today want a life of luxury and other people to pay for it.
Obviously times have changed since the 1940's - women were EXPECTED to stay home with the children, with most families being quite large back then. The roads were quieter and the neighbourhoods safer so kids were able to go to and from school with their siblings! That is not always possible in todays diverse society where extended family are not always close by to help with childcare. As for benefits, I believe they weren't readily available in the 1940's! With rising living costs etc I understand why this family are unhappy. At least they ARE trying to do their best!!!!!
Yea, your right, times have changed but for the worse, the old clap trap about women expected to stay at home may be true for some but not all, difference was people lived by their means, these days people live by what they can scrounge from the state . This family may well be unhappy, they will be even more unhappy if they have to sell their home for such a pathetic reason. If she has just qualified as a senior nurse at RBH she will know that she can apply for flex time starting if she has kids so no need to give up her job then. If she gives up her job and sells her house she still has to take her kids to school so not much changes except less money and no home.
I'm sorry but you don't get it do you?? She is a working mum, she has been in her job for 10 years if you had read it correctly. Pardon me for saying but at least this mum is getting out there and having a career, she is not scrounging off the state at all!!!! All she wants is a bit of fairness from the council to enable her to be able to take her child to her nearby school in order that she may then be able to go to work. Quite rightly so too! How about picking on the lazy so and so's that can't be bothered to work instead. Give this mum a break.
I think you should read the article again penhale. You seem to have some of your facts wrong. Also, bear in mind that there will other circumstances which are not in the article which have a strong bearing on this individual case. I'm sure as an inteligent person Clare has already investigated possible work arrangements, which obviously are not feasible to her role.
[quote][p][bold]catlady73[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]penhale[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]catlady73[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]penhale[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]catlady73[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]penhale[/bold] wrote: Oh dear, Clare Scott has had me in tears here, because her offspring has to go to a school 3 miles away instead of 0.6 miles away she is going to give up her job and lose her home, get a life woman, all the problems millions of others are suffering and you believe your life is going to end because your nipper has to travel three miles, to make it worse the council have offered a taxi service which I and many others have to pay for, god knows what you will do if your family suffers a real crisis. pathetic.[/p][/quote]Do you really need to be so viscious and nasty???? I totally understand this parents point of view. Considering just how many parents are living off the state as they say they cannot work due to children, we should be praisinf and supporting the fact that both parents go out to work and simply want to be able to take their child to and from school - what is so wrong about that?[/p][/quote]I was born in the late 1940s, back then if people couldn't afford kids they didn't have them until they could, now couples knock out kids like a conveyer belt then moan when they hit a small problem and expect other hard working people to support them. It's not a case of being nasty, it's a case of facing reality, this is why the country is in such a state, councils spend most of our money supporting other peoples kids. They have two wages coming in and their still not happy, I supported my wife and children on one wage, claimed no benefits and we struggled but we got through, people today want a life of luxury and other people to pay for it.[/p][/quote]Obviously times have changed since the 1940's - women were EXPECTED to stay home with the children, with most families being quite large back then. The roads were quieter and the neighbourhoods safer so kids were able to go to and from school with their siblings! That is not always possible in todays diverse society where extended family are not always close by to help with childcare. As for benefits, I believe they weren't readily available in the 1940's! With rising living costs etc I understand why this family are unhappy. At least they ARE trying to do their best!!!!![/p][/quote]Yea, your right, times have changed but for the worse, the old clap trap about women expected to stay at home may be true for some but not all, difference was people lived by their means, these days people live by what they can scrounge from the state . This family may well be unhappy, they will be even more unhappy if they have to sell their home for such a pathetic reason. If she has just qualified as a senior nurse at RBH she will know that she can apply for flex time starting if she has kids so no need to give up her job then. If she gives up her job and sells her house she still has to take her kids to school so not much changes except less money and no home.[/p][/quote]I'm sorry but you don't get it do you?? She is a working mum, she has been in her job for 10 years if you had read it correctly. Pardon me for saying but at least this mum is getting out there and having a career, she is not scrounging off the state at all!!!! All she wants is a bit of fairness from the council to enable her to be able to take her child to her nearby school in order that she may then be able to go to work. Quite rightly so too! How about picking on the lazy so and so's that can't be bothered to work instead. Give this mum a break.[/p][/quote]I think you should read the article again penhale. You seem to have some of your facts wrong. Also, bear in mind that there will other circumstances which are not in the article which have a strong bearing on this individual case. I'm sure as an inteligent person Clare has already investigated possible work arrangements, which obviously are not feasible to her role. Moordown1
  • Score: 0

1:48pm Wed 16 May 12

Fairness for families says...

penhale wrote:
Oh dear, Clare Scott has had me in tears here, because her offspring has to go to a school 3 miles away instead of 0.6 miles away she is going to give up her job and lose her home, get a life woman, all the problems millions of others are suffering and you believe your life is going to end because your nipper has to travel three miles, to make it worse the council have offered a taxi service which I and many others have to pay for, god knows what you will do if your family suffers a real crisis. pathetic.
Do you not think that with the job Clare does she doesn't realise what suffering some people go through? This is presumably why she is keen to continue helping them!!!
[quote][p][bold]penhale[/bold] wrote: Oh dear, Clare Scott has had me in tears here, because her offspring has to go to a school 3 miles away instead of 0.6 miles away she is going to give up her job and lose her home, get a life woman, all the problems millions of others are suffering and you believe your life is going to end because your nipper has to travel three miles, to make it worse the council have offered a taxi service which I and many others have to pay for, god knows what you will do if your family suffers a real crisis. pathetic.[/p][/quote]Do you not think that with the job Clare does she doesn't realise what suffering some people go through? This is presumably why she is keen to continue helping them!!! Fairness for families
  • Score: 0

1:57pm Wed 16 May 12

catlady73 says...

Fairness for families wrote:
penhale wrote: Oh dear, Clare Scott has had me in tears here, because her offspring has to go to a school 3 miles away instead of 0.6 miles away she is going to give up her job and lose her home, get a life woman, all the problems millions of others are suffering and you believe your life is going to end because your nipper has to travel three miles, to make it worse the council have offered a taxi service which I and many others have to pay for, god knows what you will do if your family suffers a real crisis. pathetic.
Do you not think that with the job Clare does she doesn't realise what suffering some people go through? This is presumably why she is keen to continue helping them!!!
Well said, I totally agree!!
[quote][p][bold]Fairness for families[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]penhale[/bold] wrote: Oh dear, Clare Scott has had me in tears here, because her offspring has to go to a school 3 miles away instead of 0.6 miles away she is going to give up her job and lose her home, get a life woman, all the problems millions of others are suffering and you believe your life is going to end because your nipper has to travel three miles, to make it worse the council have offered a taxi service which I and many others have to pay for, god knows what you will do if your family suffers a real crisis. pathetic.[/p][/quote]Do you not think that with the job Clare does she doesn't realise what suffering some people go through? This is presumably why she is keen to continue helping them!!![/p][/quote]Well said, I totally agree!! catlady73
  • Score: 0

2:25pm Wed 16 May 12

rollwithit says...

For god's sake - we can all argue about the reasons for it but just take a look at the schools in question. She doesn't want her precious offspring to go to her in catchment school as it is a bad one. The schools she did apply for are all good ones. I would be willing to bet money that if she had been offered a taxi to take the child to Muscliffe for example she would have had no issue with it at all. And catlady, you may want to read my replies again as I cannot see where I have stated that catchment was the only criteria??? However, it is certainly a very important one. Priority will be given to those in catchment once all those meeting higher priorty criteria have been placed. To cherry pick the out of catchment schools over your own catchment school is, quite frankly, stupid in the extreme. Penhale, you are absolutely right in your comments. It's an inconvenience no more and one, which I believe, is more to do with the school they have been given than the distance involved! NHS have flexi working times and all schools these days have breakfast and after school clubs. How do they think everybody else who has a job does it? I work full time, raise my son, alone, and still manage to get him to school, 4 miles away, and to work by 9am. Get a grip.
For god's sake - we can all argue about the reasons for it but just take a look at the schools in question. She doesn't want her precious offspring to go to her in catchment school as it is a bad one. The schools she did apply for are all good ones. I would be willing to bet money that if she had been offered a taxi to take the child to Muscliffe for example she would have had no issue with it at all. And catlady, you may want to read my replies again as I cannot see where I have stated that catchment was the only criteria??? However, it is certainly a very important one. Priority will be given to those in catchment once all those meeting higher priorty criteria have been placed. To cherry pick the out of catchment schools over your own catchment school is, quite frankly, stupid in the extreme. Penhale, you are absolutely right in your comments. It's an inconvenience no more and one, which I believe, is more to do with the school they have been given than the distance involved! NHS have flexi working times and all schools these days have breakfast and after school clubs. How do they think everybody else who has a job does it? I work full time, raise my son, alone, and still manage to get him to school, 4 miles away, and to work by 9am. Get a grip. rollwithit
  • Score: 0

2:55pm Wed 16 May 12

Moordown1 says...

rollwithit wrote:
For god's sake - we can all argue about the reasons for it but just take a look at the schools in question. She doesn't want her precious offspring to go to her in catchment school as it is a bad one. The schools she did apply for are all good ones. I would be willing to bet money that if she had been offered a taxi to take the child to Muscliffe for example she would have had no issue with it at all. And catlady, you may want to read my replies again as I cannot see where I have stated that catchment was the only criteria??? However, it is certainly a very important one. Priority will be given to those in catchment once all those meeting higher priorty criteria have been placed. To cherry pick the out of catchment schools over your own catchment school is, quite frankly, stupid in the extreme. Penhale, you are absolutely right in your comments. It's an inconvenience no more and one, which I believe, is more to do with the school they have been given than the distance involved! NHS have flexi working times and all schools these days have breakfast and after school clubs. How do they think everybody else who has a job does it? I work full time, raise my son, alone, and still manage to get him to school, 4 miles away, and to work by 9am. Get a grip.
Who in their right mind is going to put a 4 year old child in a taxi to get them to school whether it is 4 mile journey or 400 yards away - I certainly wouldn't! The same goes for so called breakfast clubs and after school clubs. This is a 4 year old child, and some of the comments here seem to have lost sight of that!! The issue here is that there is no consideration given to personal circumstances when the school places are allocated, even though supporting information is asked for on the application form. It makes a mockery of the system, when there are many parents out there who have genuine reasons for their school preferences, and are not just placing the best schools on their list. If the council and the church schools are purely going to allocate by distance and catchment, then this information should not be asked for as it makes the whole process very misleading
[quote][p][bold]rollwithit[/bold] wrote: For god's sake - we can all argue about the reasons for it but just take a look at the schools in question. She doesn't want her precious offspring to go to her in catchment school as it is a bad one. The schools she did apply for are all good ones. I would be willing to bet money that if she had been offered a taxi to take the child to Muscliffe for example she would have had no issue with it at all. And catlady, you may want to read my replies again as I cannot see where I have stated that catchment was the only criteria??? However, it is certainly a very important one. Priority will be given to those in catchment once all those meeting higher priorty criteria have been placed. To cherry pick the out of catchment schools over your own catchment school is, quite frankly, stupid in the extreme. Penhale, you are absolutely right in your comments. It's an inconvenience no more and one, which I believe, is more to do with the school they have been given than the distance involved! NHS have flexi working times and all schools these days have breakfast and after school clubs. How do they think everybody else who has a job does it? I work full time, raise my son, alone, and still manage to get him to school, 4 miles away, and to work by 9am. Get a grip.[/p][/quote]Who in their right mind is going to put a 4 year old child in a taxi to get them to school whether it is 4 mile journey or 400 yards away - I certainly wouldn't! The same goes for so called breakfast clubs and after school clubs. This is a 4 year old child, and some of the comments here seem to have lost sight of that!! The issue here is that there is no consideration given to personal circumstances when the school places are allocated, even though supporting information is asked for on the application form. It makes a mockery of the system, when there are many parents out there who have genuine reasons for their school preferences, and are not just placing the best schools on their list. If the council and the church schools are purely going to allocate by distance and catchment, then this information should not be asked for as it makes the whole process very misleading Moordown1
  • Score: 0

3:04pm Wed 16 May 12

rollwithit says...

Moordown1 wrote:
rollwithit wrote:
For god's sake - we can all argue about the reasons for it but just take a look at the schools in question. She doesn't want her precious offspring to go to her in catchment school as it is a bad one. The schools she did apply for are all good ones. I would be willing to bet money that if she had been offered a taxi to take the child to Muscliffe for example she would have had no issue with it at all. And catlady, you may want to read my replies again as I cannot see where I have stated that catchment was the only criteria??? However, it is certainly a very important one. Priority will be given to those in catchment once all those meeting higher priorty criteria have been placed. To cherry pick the out of catchment schools over your own catchment school is, quite frankly, stupid in the extreme. Penhale, you are absolutely right in your comments. It's an inconvenience no more and one, which I believe, is more to do with the school they have been given than the distance involved! NHS have flexi working times and all schools these days have breakfast and after school clubs. How do they think everybody else who has a job does it? I work full time, raise my son, alone, and still manage to get him to school, 4 miles away, and to work by 9am. Get a grip.
Who in their right mind is going to put a 4 year old child in a taxi to get them to school whether it is 4 mile journey or 400 yards away - I certainly wouldn't! The same goes for so called breakfast clubs and after school clubs. This is a 4 year old child, and some of the comments here seem to have lost sight of that!! The issue here is that there is no consideration given to personal circumstances when the school places are allocated, even though supporting information is asked for on the application form. It makes a mockery of the system, when there are many parents out there who have genuine reasons for their school preferences, and are not just placing the best schools on their list. If the council and the church schools are purely going to allocate by distance and catchment, then this information should not be asked for as it makes the whole process very misleading
The idea isn't that the child go on it's own in a taxi! You accompany the child! They do no solely allocate by distance and catchment. I give up. People like you have no idea what you are talking about when you jump in to discussions. Educate yourself on what you are talking about THEN jump in. Supporting information is not requested so that they can accommodate people who don't want to go to their catchment school because it's not a good one, or because parents may have to make changes to accommodate school. Personal circumstances are considered when they are serious ones! Seriously, you honestly expect schools to take into account that they may have to make adjustments?? Your comments beggar belief!!! And there is nothing wrong with breakfast clubs. My son, who is 6 btw, goes to breakfast club at school every morning at 8am and loves it and has been since he started school.
[quote][p][bold]Moordown1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rollwithit[/bold] wrote: For god's sake - we can all argue about the reasons for it but just take a look at the schools in question. She doesn't want her precious offspring to go to her in catchment school as it is a bad one. The schools she did apply for are all good ones. I would be willing to bet money that if she had been offered a taxi to take the child to Muscliffe for example she would have had no issue with it at all. And catlady, you may want to read my replies again as I cannot see where I have stated that catchment was the only criteria??? However, it is certainly a very important one. Priority will be given to those in catchment once all those meeting higher priorty criteria have been placed. To cherry pick the out of catchment schools over your own catchment school is, quite frankly, stupid in the extreme. Penhale, you are absolutely right in your comments. It's an inconvenience no more and one, which I believe, is more to do with the school they have been given than the distance involved! NHS have flexi working times and all schools these days have breakfast and after school clubs. How do they think everybody else who has a job does it? I work full time, raise my son, alone, and still manage to get him to school, 4 miles away, and to work by 9am. Get a grip.[/p][/quote]Who in their right mind is going to put a 4 year old child in a taxi to get them to school whether it is 4 mile journey or 400 yards away - I certainly wouldn't! The same goes for so called breakfast clubs and after school clubs. This is a 4 year old child, and some of the comments here seem to have lost sight of that!! The issue here is that there is no consideration given to personal circumstances when the school places are allocated, even though supporting information is asked for on the application form. It makes a mockery of the system, when there are many parents out there who have genuine reasons for their school preferences, and are not just placing the best schools on their list. If the council and the church schools are purely going to allocate by distance and catchment, then this information should not be asked for as it makes the whole process very misleading[/p][/quote]The idea isn't that the child go on it's own in a taxi! You accompany the child! They do no solely allocate by distance and catchment. I give up. People like you have no idea what you are talking about when you jump in to discussions. Educate yourself on what you are talking about THEN jump in. Supporting information is not requested so that they can accommodate people who don't want to go to their catchment school because it's not a good one, or because parents may have to make changes to accommodate school. Personal circumstances are considered when they are serious ones! Seriously, you honestly expect schools to take into account that they may have to make adjustments?? Your comments beggar belief!!! And there is nothing wrong with breakfast clubs. My son, who is 6 btw, goes to breakfast club at school every morning at 8am and loves it and has been since he started school. rollwithit
  • Score: 0

3:47pm Wed 16 May 12

tricky1007 says...

penhale wrote:
Oh dear, Clare Scott has had me in tears here, because her offspring has to go to a school 3 miles away instead of 0.6 miles away she is going to give up her job and lose her home, get a life woman, all the problems millions of others are suffering and you believe your life is going to end because your nipper has to travel three miles, to make it worse the council have offered a taxi service which I and many others have to pay for, god knows what you will do if your family suffers a real crisis. pathetic.
I find it hard to believe they cant go with the child as they will be late for work, its 5 miles round trip further, surely they would have walked the 0.6 mile one? so with a taxi taking them the extra distance the time difference must be a couple of minutes?!!!
[quote][p][bold]penhale[/bold] wrote: Oh dear, Clare Scott has had me in tears here, because her offspring has to go to a school 3 miles away instead of 0.6 miles away she is going to give up her job and lose her home, get a life woman, all the problems millions of others are suffering and you believe your life is going to end because your nipper has to travel three miles, to make it worse the council have offered a taxi service which I and many others have to pay for, god knows what you will do if your family suffers a real crisis. pathetic.[/p][/quote]I find it hard to believe they cant go with the child as they will be late for work, its 5 miles round trip further, surely they would have walked the 0.6 mile one? so with a taxi taking them the extra distance the time difference must be a couple of minutes?!!! tricky1007
  • Score: 0

3:56pm Wed 16 May 12

catlady73 says...

rollwithit wrote:
Moordown1 wrote:
rollwithit wrote:
For god's sake - we can all argue about the reasons for it but just take a look at the schools in question. She doesn't want her precious offspring to go to her in catchment school as it is a bad one. The schools she did apply for are all good ones. I would be willing to bet money that if she had been offered a taxi to take the child to Muscliffe for example she would have had no issue with it at all. And catlady, you may want to read my replies again as I cannot see where I have stated that catchment was the only criteria??? However, it is certainly a very important one. Priority will be given to those in catchment once all those meeting higher priorty criteria have been placed. To cherry pick the out of catchment schools over your own catchment school is, quite frankly, stupid in the extreme. Penhale, you are absolutely right in your comments. It's an inconvenience no more and one, which I believe, is more to do with the school they have been given than the distance involved! NHS have flexi working times and all schools these days have breakfast and after school clubs. How do they think everybody else who has a job does it? I work full time, raise my son, alone, and still manage to get him to school, 4 miles away, and to work by 9am. Get a grip.
Who in their right mind is going to put a 4 year old child in a taxi to get them to school whether it is 4 mile journey or 400 yards away - I certainly wouldn't! The same goes for so called breakfast clubs and after school clubs. This is a 4 year old child, and some of the comments here seem to have lost sight of that!! The issue here is that there is no consideration given to personal circumstances when the school places are allocated, even though supporting information is asked for on the application form. It makes a mockery of the system, when there are many parents out there who have genuine reasons for their school preferences, and are not just placing the best schools on their list. If the council and the church schools are purely going to allocate by distance and catchment, then this information should not be asked for as it makes the whole process very misleading
The idea isn't that the child go on it's own in a taxi! You accompany the child! They do no solely allocate by distance and catchment. I give up. People like you have no idea what you are talking about when you jump in to discussions. Educate yourself on what you are talking about THEN jump in. Supporting information is not requested so that they can accommodate people who don't want to go to their catchment school because it's not a good one, or because parents may have to make changes to accommodate school. Personal circumstances are considered when they are serious ones! Seriously, you honestly expect schools to take into account that they may have to make adjustments?? Your comments beggar belief!!! And there is nothing wrong with breakfast clubs. My son, who is 6 btw, goes to breakfast club at school every morning at 8am and loves it and has been since he started school.
Catchment is all that counts for school places I quote from your post at 10.32am today! If you read the article, the parents are unable to accompany their child in the taxi due to time restraints of getting to work! As for NHS flexi time, it is only available if the employee is able to still meet the needs of the service, therefore it may not be possible for hours to be changed! As for your child attending breakfast club, that is your choice, however this also means more expense not to mention that some of us do not want to palm our kids off from 8am-6pm when there is absolutely no reason to, which in this case there isn't. The child should have the right to attend a nearby school and the parents also have the right to choose the school their child attends!
[quote][p][bold]rollwithit[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Moordown1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rollwithit[/bold] wrote: For god's sake - we can all argue about the reasons for it but just take a look at the schools in question. She doesn't want her precious offspring to go to her in catchment school as it is a bad one. The schools she did apply for are all good ones. I would be willing to bet money that if she had been offered a taxi to take the child to Muscliffe for example she would have had no issue with it at all. And catlady, you may want to read my replies again as I cannot see where I have stated that catchment was the only criteria??? However, it is certainly a very important one. Priority will be given to those in catchment once all those meeting higher priorty criteria have been placed. To cherry pick the out of catchment schools over your own catchment school is, quite frankly, stupid in the extreme. Penhale, you are absolutely right in your comments. It's an inconvenience no more and one, which I believe, is more to do with the school they have been given than the distance involved! NHS have flexi working times and all schools these days have breakfast and after school clubs. How do they think everybody else who has a job does it? I work full time, raise my son, alone, and still manage to get him to school, 4 miles away, and to work by 9am. Get a grip.[/p][/quote]Who in their right mind is going to put a 4 year old child in a taxi to get them to school whether it is 4 mile journey or 400 yards away - I certainly wouldn't! The same goes for so called breakfast clubs and after school clubs. This is a 4 year old child, and some of the comments here seem to have lost sight of that!! The issue here is that there is no consideration given to personal circumstances when the school places are allocated, even though supporting information is asked for on the application form. It makes a mockery of the system, when there are many parents out there who have genuine reasons for their school preferences, and are not just placing the best schools on their list. If the council and the church schools are purely going to allocate by distance and catchment, then this information should not be asked for as it makes the whole process very misleading[/p][/quote]The idea isn't that the child go on it's own in a taxi! You accompany the child! They do no solely allocate by distance and catchment. I give up. People like you have no idea what you are talking about when you jump in to discussions. Educate yourself on what you are talking about THEN jump in. Supporting information is not requested so that they can accommodate people who don't want to go to their catchment school because it's not a good one, or because parents may have to make changes to accommodate school. Personal circumstances are considered when they are serious ones! Seriously, you honestly expect schools to take into account that they may have to make adjustments?? Your comments beggar belief!!! And there is nothing wrong with breakfast clubs. My son, who is 6 btw, goes to breakfast club at school every morning at 8am and loves it and has been since he started school.[/p][/quote]Catchment is all that counts for school places I quote from your post at 10.32am today! If you read the article, the parents are unable to accompany their child in the taxi due to time restraints of getting to work! As for NHS flexi time, it is only available if the employee is able to still meet the needs of the service, therefore it may not be possible for hours to be changed! As for your child attending breakfast club, that is your choice, however this also means more expense not to mention that some of us do not want to palm our kids off from 8am-6pm when there is absolutely no reason to, which in this case there isn't. The child should have the right to attend a nearby school and the parents also have the right to choose the school their child attends! catlady73
  • Score: 0

4:38pm Wed 16 May 12

Moordown1 says...

rollwithit wrote:
Moordown1 wrote:
rollwithit wrote: For god's sake - we can all argue about the reasons for it but just take a look at the schools in question. She doesn't want her precious offspring to go to her in catchment school as it is a bad one. The schools she did apply for are all good ones. I would be willing to bet money that if she had been offered a taxi to take the child to Muscliffe for example she would have had no issue with it at all. And catlady, you may want to read my replies again as I cannot see where I have stated that catchment was the only criteria??? However, it is certainly a very important one. Priority will be given to those in catchment once all those meeting higher priorty criteria have been placed. To cherry pick the out of catchment schools over your own catchment school is, quite frankly, stupid in the extreme. Penhale, you are absolutely right in your comments. It's an inconvenience no more and one, which I believe, is more to do with the school they have been given than the distance involved! NHS have flexi working times and all schools these days have breakfast and after school clubs. How do they think everybody else who has a job does it? I work full time, raise my son, alone, and still manage to get him to school, 4 miles away, and to work by 9am. Get a grip.
Who in their right mind is going to put a 4 year old child in a taxi to get them to school whether it is 4 mile journey or 400 yards away - I certainly wouldn't! The same goes for so called breakfast clubs and after school clubs. This is a 4 year old child, and some of the comments here seem to have lost sight of that!! The issue here is that there is no consideration given to personal circumstances when the school places are allocated, even though supporting information is asked for on the application form. It makes a mockery of the system, when there are many parents out there who have genuine reasons for their school preferences, and are not just placing the best schools on their list. If the council and the church schools are purely going to allocate by distance and catchment, then this information should not be asked for as it makes the whole process very misleading
The idea isn't that the child go on it's own in a taxi! You accompany the child! They do no solely allocate by distance and catchment. I give up. People like you have no idea what you are talking about when you jump in to discussions. Educate yourself on what you are talking about THEN jump in. Supporting information is not requested so that they can accommodate people who don't want to go to their catchment school because it's not a good one, or because parents may have to make changes to accommodate school. Personal circumstances are considered when they are serious ones! Seriously, you honestly expect schools to take into account that they may have to make adjustments?? Your comments beggar belief!!! And there is nothing wrong with breakfast clubs. My son, who is 6 btw, goes to breakfast club at school every morning at 8am and loves it and has been since he started school.
Parents do not expect to be able to choose the school their children attend, if they did, then all parents would simply choose the school with the best reputation and/or best OFSTED report. What parents do expect, is that their child will be able to go to a school which is close to where they live. If a parent is not able to get one of their preference schools, there would not be a huge public outcry if the school they were allocated was within walking distance.
But this year, what has happened is a large number of parents, and we are talking about over 200 families here, have been allocated schools which are nowhere near where they live. Bournemouth is a busy town, and heavily conjested with people getting to work and schools at peak times. These displaced children are only adding to this. What parent wouldn't want to walk their child to school rather than sit in their car in traffic?
It is quite possible that parents may not wish their child to attend their catchment school if for example an ex-partner was an employee there - would this perhaps be a good enough reason? Or should parents just be expected to take what they are given and be thankful? Sometimes it is not just about choice, it is also about reasonableness!
[quote][p][bold]rollwithit[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Moordown1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rollwithit[/bold] wrote: For god's sake - we can all argue about the reasons for it but just take a look at the schools in question. She doesn't want her precious offspring to go to her in catchment school as it is a bad one. The schools she did apply for are all good ones. I would be willing to bet money that if she had been offered a taxi to take the child to Muscliffe for example she would have had no issue with it at all. And catlady, you may want to read my replies again as I cannot see where I have stated that catchment was the only criteria??? However, it is certainly a very important one. Priority will be given to those in catchment once all those meeting higher priorty criteria have been placed. To cherry pick the out of catchment schools over your own catchment school is, quite frankly, stupid in the extreme. Penhale, you are absolutely right in your comments. It's an inconvenience no more and one, which I believe, is more to do with the school they have been given than the distance involved! NHS have flexi working times and all schools these days have breakfast and after school clubs. How do they think everybody else who has a job does it? I work full time, raise my son, alone, and still manage to get him to school, 4 miles away, and to work by 9am. Get a grip.[/p][/quote]Who in their right mind is going to put a 4 year old child in a taxi to get them to school whether it is 4 mile journey or 400 yards away - I certainly wouldn't! The same goes for so called breakfast clubs and after school clubs. This is a 4 year old child, and some of the comments here seem to have lost sight of that!! The issue here is that there is no consideration given to personal circumstances when the school places are allocated, even though supporting information is asked for on the application form. It makes a mockery of the system, when there are many parents out there who have genuine reasons for their school preferences, and are not just placing the best schools on their list. If the council and the church schools are purely going to allocate by distance and catchment, then this information should not be asked for as it makes the whole process very misleading[/p][/quote]The idea isn't that the child go on it's own in a taxi! You accompany the child! They do no solely allocate by distance and catchment. I give up. People like you have no idea what you are talking about when you jump in to discussions. Educate yourself on what you are talking about THEN jump in. Supporting information is not requested so that they can accommodate people who don't want to go to their catchment school because it's not a good one, or because parents may have to make changes to accommodate school. Personal circumstances are considered when they are serious ones! Seriously, you honestly expect schools to take into account that they may have to make adjustments?? Your comments beggar belief!!! And there is nothing wrong with breakfast clubs. My son, who is 6 btw, goes to breakfast club at school every morning at 8am and loves it and has been since he started school.[/p][/quote]Parents do not expect to be able to choose the school their children attend, if they did, then all parents would simply choose the school with the best reputation and/or best OFSTED report. What parents do expect, is that their child will be able to go to a school which is close to where they live. If a parent is not able to get one of their preference schools, there would not be a huge public outcry if the school they were allocated was within walking distance. But this year, what has happened is a large number of parents, and we are talking about over 200 families here, have been allocated schools which are nowhere near where they live. Bournemouth is a busy town, and heavily conjested with people getting to work and schools at peak times. These displaced children are only adding to this. What parent wouldn't want to walk their child to school rather than sit in their car in traffic? It is quite possible that parents may not wish their child to attend their catchment school if for example an ex-partner was an employee there - would this perhaps be a good enough reason? Or should parents just be expected to take what they are given and be thankful? Sometimes it is not just about choice, it is also about reasonableness! Moordown1
  • Score: 0

5:14pm Wed 16 May 12

Arjay says...

What a surprise that most of the 'spare' places are at Heathlands and Elmrise!
At the former, based on 2011 figures, there is a 50% chance of your child not meeting KS 2 level 4 standards. At the latter it's more than 70%.
If I were Clare, I think I'd try and hang on for another year, and hope for a nearer choice next year.
School is not compulsory for the under 5's......
What a surprise that most of the 'spare' places are at Heathlands and Elmrise! At the former, based on 2011 figures, there is a 50% chance of your child not meeting KS 2 level 4 standards. At the latter it's more than 70%. If I were Clare, I think I'd try and hang on for another year, and hope for a nearer choice next year. School is not compulsory for the under 5's...... Arjay
  • Score: 0

7:17pm Wed 16 May 12

Watusay says...

Ever heard of a childminder?
Ever heard of a childminder? Watusay
  • Score: 0

7:24pm Wed 16 May 12

Arjay says...

I see that Bournemouth Council are prepared to fund a taxi for this child to and from school.
At a rough estiamte, that's about £10 each way - £100 per week. £5000 a year.

If you could persuade them to re-allocate those funds to you, you'd only have to find another £20 per week to be able to afford private school fees at the Park School in Queens Park.
Might be worth asking? Won't cost the Council any more money than they're offering to pay already..........
I see that Bournemouth Council are prepared to fund a taxi for this child to and from school. At a rough estiamte, that's about £10 each way - £100 per week. £5000 a year. If you could persuade them to re-allocate those funds to you, you'd only have to find another £20 per week to be able to afford private school fees at the Park School in Queens Park. Might be worth asking? Won't cost the Council any more money than they're offering to pay already.......... Arjay
  • Score: 0

8:08pm Wed 16 May 12

rollwithit says...

catlady73 wrote:
rollwithit wrote:
Moordown1 wrote:
rollwithit wrote:
For god's sake - we can all argue about the reasons for it but just take a look at the schools in question. She doesn't want her precious offspring to go to her in catchment school as it is a bad one. The schools she did apply for are all good ones. I would be willing to bet money that if she had been offered a taxi to take the child to Muscliffe for example she would have had no issue with it at all. And catlady, you may want to read my replies again as I cannot see where I have stated that catchment was the only criteria??? However, it is certainly a very important one. Priority will be given to those in catchment once all those meeting higher priorty criteria have been placed. To cherry pick the out of catchment schools over your own catchment school is, quite frankly, stupid in the extreme. Penhale, you are absolutely right in your comments. It's an inconvenience no more and one, which I believe, is more to do with the school they have been given than the distance involved! NHS have flexi working times and all schools these days have breakfast and after school clubs. How do they think everybody else who has a job does it? I work full time, raise my son, alone, and still manage to get him to school, 4 miles away, and to work by 9am. Get a grip.
Who in their right mind is going to put a 4 year old child in a taxi to get them to school whether it is 4 mile journey or 400 yards away - I certainly wouldn't! The same goes for so called breakfast clubs and after school clubs. This is a 4 year old child, and some of the comments here seem to have lost sight of that!! The issue here is that there is no consideration given to personal circumstances when the school places are allocated, even though supporting information is asked for on the application form. It makes a mockery of the system, when there are many parents out there who have genuine reasons for their school preferences, and are not just placing the best schools on their list. If the council and the church schools are purely going to allocate by distance and catchment, then this information should not be asked for as it makes the whole process very misleading
The idea isn't that the child go on it's own in a taxi! You accompany the child! They do no solely allocate by distance and catchment. I give up. People like you have no idea what you are talking about when you jump in to discussions. Educate yourself on what you are talking about THEN jump in. Supporting information is not requested so that they can accommodate people who don't want to go to their catchment school because it's not a good one, or because parents may have to make changes to accommodate school. Personal circumstances are considered when they are serious ones! Seriously, you honestly expect schools to take into account that they may have to make adjustments?? Your comments beggar belief!!! And there is nothing wrong with breakfast clubs. My son, who is 6 btw, goes to breakfast club at school every morning at 8am and loves it and has been since he started school.
Catchment is all that counts for school places I quote from your post at 10.32am today! If you read the article, the parents are unable to accompany their child in the taxi due to time restraints of getting to work! As for NHS flexi time, it is only available if the employee is able to still meet the needs of the service, therefore it may not be possible for hours to be changed! As for your child attending breakfast club, that is your choice, however this also means more expense not to mention that some of us do not want to palm our kids off from 8am-6pm when there is absolutely no reason to, which in this case there isn't. The child should have the right to attend a nearby school and the parents also have the right to choose the school their child attends!
It must be nice living in your world. I don't enjoy 'palming' my son off as you call it. I work. I contribute to society. Therefore I've had to make adjustments and sacrifices. I don't have a choice. It's what parents do. And yes, there is a reason to. You need to realise that in the real world you can't have everything and here there clearly is a a reason to 'palm' their children off to breakfast club as you put it if it means they keep their jobs. The parents have plenty of time to get in a taxi if they attend breakfast club. They will have to make adjustments and many, many other parents have had to do and will continue to have to do. If your life has been any different you have led a very priveleged and spoilt one which, judging by your comments, would seem evident. Maybe you also don't have children, just cats?
[quote][p][bold]catlady73[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rollwithit[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Moordown1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rollwithit[/bold] wrote: For god's sake - we can all argue about the reasons for it but just take a look at the schools in question. She doesn't want her precious offspring to go to her in catchment school as it is a bad one. The schools she did apply for are all good ones. I would be willing to bet money that if she had been offered a taxi to take the child to Muscliffe for example she would have had no issue with it at all. And catlady, you may want to read my replies again as I cannot see where I have stated that catchment was the only criteria??? However, it is certainly a very important one. Priority will be given to those in catchment once all those meeting higher priorty criteria have been placed. To cherry pick the out of catchment schools over your own catchment school is, quite frankly, stupid in the extreme. Penhale, you are absolutely right in your comments. It's an inconvenience no more and one, which I believe, is more to do with the school they have been given than the distance involved! NHS have flexi working times and all schools these days have breakfast and after school clubs. How do they think everybody else who has a job does it? I work full time, raise my son, alone, and still manage to get him to school, 4 miles away, and to work by 9am. Get a grip.[/p][/quote]Who in their right mind is going to put a 4 year old child in a taxi to get them to school whether it is 4 mile journey or 400 yards away - I certainly wouldn't! The same goes for so called breakfast clubs and after school clubs. This is a 4 year old child, and some of the comments here seem to have lost sight of that!! The issue here is that there is no consideration given to personal circumstances when the school places are allocated, even though supporting information is asked for on the application form. It makes a mockery of the system, when there are many parents out there who have genuine reasons for their school preferences, and are not just placing the best schools on their list. If the council and the church schools are purely going to allocate by distance and catchment, then this information should not be asked for as it makes the whole process very misleading[/p][/quote]The idea isn't that the child go on it's own in a taxi! You accompany the child! They do no solely allocate by distance and catchment. I give up. People like you have no idea what you are talking about when you jump in to discussions. Educate yourself on what you are talking about THEN jump in. Supporting information is not requested so that they can accommodate people who don't want to go to their catchment school because it's not a good one, or because parents may have to make changes to accommodate school. Personal circumstances are considered when they are serious ones! Seriously, you honestly expect schools to take into account that they may have to make adjustments?? Your comments beggar belief!!! And there is nothing wrong with breakfast clubs. My son, who is 6 btw, goes to breakfast club at school every morning at 8am and loves it and has been since he started school.[/p][/quote]Catchment is all that counts for school places I quote from your post at 10.32am today! If you read the article, the parents are unable to accompany their child in the taxi due to time restraints of getting to work! As for NHS flexi time, it is only available if the employee is able to still meet the needs of the service, therefore it may not be possible for hours to be changed! As for your child attending breakfast club, that is your choice, however this also means more expense not to mention that some of us do not want to palm our kids off from 8am-6pm when there is absolutely no reason to, which in this case there isn't. The child should have the right to attend a nearby school and the parents also have the right to choose the school their child attends![/p][/quote]It must be nice living in your world. I don't enjoy 'palming' my son off as you call it. I work. I contribute to society. Therefore I've had to make adjustments and sacrifices. I don't have a choice. It's what parents do. And yes, there is a reason to. You need to realise that in the real world you can't have everything and here there clearly is a a reason to 'palm' their children off to breakfast club as you put it if it means they keep their jobs. The parents have plenty of time to get in a taxi if they attend breakfast club. They will have to make adjustments and many, many other parents have had to do and will continue to have to do. If your life has been any different you have led a very priveleged and spoilt one which, judging by your comments, would seem evident. Maybe you also don't have children, just cats? rollwithit
  • Score: 0

8:26pm Wed 16 May 12

Fairness for families says...

Arjay wrote:
I see that Bournemouth Council are prepared to fund a taxi for this child to and from school.
At a rough estiamte, that's about £10 each way - £100 per week. £5000 a year.

If you could persuade them to re-allocate those funds to you, you'd only have to find another £20 per week to be able to afford private school fees at the Park School in Queens Park.
Might be worth asking? Won't cost the Council any more money than they're offering to pay already..........
What an excellent idea! Why are the council so desperate to keep 3 schools near to each other that no one wants to go to open? So desperate that they are prepared to pay for taxi's. Although my children are grown up I wouldn't want to be in this position. In my day you just went to the nearest school. There were no ofsted reports. Local children went to local schools and we had local communities and after school all played together on the street or in each other's houses.
[quote][p][bold]Arjay[/bold] wrote: I see that Bournemouth Council are prepared to fund a taxi for this child to and from school. At a rough estiamte, that's about £10 each way - £100 per week. £5000 a year. If you could persuade them to re-allocate those funds to you, you'd only have to find another £20 per week to be able to afford private school fees at the Park School in Queens Park. Might be worth asking? Won't cost the Council any more money than they're offering to pay already..........[/p][/quote]What an excellent idea! Why are the council so desperate to keep 3 schools near to each other that no one wants to go to open? So desperate that they are prepared to pay for taxi's. Although my children are grown up I wouldn't want to be in this position. In my day you just went to the nearest school. There were no ofsted reports. Local children went to local schools and we had local communities and after school all played together on the street or in each other's houses. Fairness for families
  • Score: 0

9:06pm Wed 16 May 12

catlady73 says...

Rollwithit I can assure you, my life has not been priviledged and spoilt as you so unkindly put it. I am a parent to 2 young children not cats, ha ha, more assumptions! I have had to make many sacrifices for my children and to put it bluntly - I did not have children to put them in breakfast and after school clubs simply because being a parent is the best job in the world and I wouldn't sacrifice the precious time I have with my children! I also contribute to society by going to work, you are not the only one, however I fit my work around my children not the other way round as you do. The main point has clearly been missed here though - the fact that this family have not been offered a school close to where they live. Period !!!!!!!!!!
Rollwithit I can assure you, my life has not been priviledged and spoilt as you so unkindly put it. I am a parent to 2 young children not cats, ha ha, more assumptions! I have had to make many sacrifices for my children and to put it bluntly - I did not have children to put them in breakfast and after school clubs simply because being a parent is the best job in the world and I wouldn't sacrifice the precious time I have with my children! I also contribute to society by going to work, you are not the only one, however I fit my work around my children not the other way round as you do. The main point has clearly been missed here though - the fact that this family have not been offered a school close to where they live. Period !!!!!!!!!! catlady73
  • Score: 0

9:47pm Wed 16 May 12

penhale says...

Fairness for families wrote:
penhale wrote:
Oh dear, Clare Scott has had me in tears here, because her offspring has to go to a school 3 miles away instead of 0.6 miles away she is going to give up her job and lose her home, get a life woman, all the problems millions of others are suffering and you believe your life is going to end because your nipper has to travel three miles, to make it worse the council have offered a taxi service which I and many others have to pay for, god knows what you will do if your family suffers a real crisis. pathetic.
Do you not think that with the job Clare does she doesn't realise what suffering some people go through? This is presumably why she is keen to continue helping them!!!
Obviously not so keen if she is prepared to give up her job because her child has to travel 3 miles in a nice warm taxi instead of walking 0.6 miles in the freezing cold.
If she walks her child 0.6 miles to school the time difference would not be so different by traveling 3 miles in a taxi so really there's no argument here
[quote][p][bold]Fairness for families[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]penhale[/bold] wrote: Oh dear, Clare Scott has had me in tears here, because her offspring has to go to a school 3 miles away instead of 0.6 miles away she is going to give up her job and lose her home, get a life woman, all the problems millions of others are suffering and you believe your life is going to end because your nipper has to travel three miles, to make it worse the council have offered a taxi service which I and many others have to pay for, god knows what you will do if your family suffers a real crisis. pathetic.[/p][/quote]Do you not think that with the job Clare does she doesn't realise what suffering some people go through? This is presumably why she is keen to continue helping them!!![/p][/quote]Obviously not so keen if she is prepared to give up her job because her child has to travel 3 miles in a nice warm taxi instead of walking 0.6 miles in the freezing cold. If she walks her child 0.6 miles to school the time difference would not be so different by traveling 3 miles in a taxi so really there's no argument here penhale
  • Score: 0

9:52pm Wed 16 May 12

penhale says...

catlady73 wrote:
rollwithit wrote:
Moordown1 wrote:
rollwithit wrote:
For god's sake - we can all argue about the reasons for it but just take a look at the schools in question. She doesn't want her precious offspring to go to her in catchment school as it is a bad one. The schools she did apply for are all good ones. I would be willing to bet money that if she had been offered a taxi to take the child to Muscliffe for example she would have had no issue with it at all. And catlady, you may want to read my replies again as I cannot see where I have stated that catchment was the only criteria??? However, it is certainly a very important one. Priority will be given to those in catchment once all those meeting higher priorty criteria have been placed. To cherry pick the out of catchment schools over your own catchment school is, quite frankly, stupid in the extreme. Penhale, you are absolutely right in your comments. It's an inconvenience no more and one, which I believe, is more to do with the school they have been given than the distance involved! NHS have flexi working times and all schools these days have breakfast and after school clubs. How do they think everybody else who has a job does it? I work full time, raise my son, alone, and still manage to get him to school, 4 miles away, and to work by 9am. Get a grip.
Who in their right mind is going to put a 4 year old child in a taxi to get them to school whether it is 4 mile journey or 400 yards away - I certainly wouldn't! The same goes for so called breakfast clubs and after school clubs. This is a 4 year old child, and some of the comments here seem to have lost sight of that!! The issue here is that there is no consideration given to personal circumstances when the school places are allocated, even though supporting information is asked for on the application form. It makes a mockery of the system, when there are many parents out there who have genuine reasons for their school preferences, and are not just placing the best schools on their list. If the council and the church schools are purely going to allocate by distance and catchment, then this information should not be asked for as it makes the whole process very misleading
The idea isn't that the child go on it's own in a taxi! You accompany the child! They do no solely allocate by distance and catchment. I give up. People like you have no idea what you are talking about when you jump in to discussions. Educate yourself on what you are talking about THEN jump in. Supporting information is not requested so that they can accommodate people who don't want to go to their catchment school because it's not a good one, or because parents may have to make changes to accommodate school. Personal circumstances are considered when they are serious ones! Seriously, you honestly expect schools to take into account that they may have to make adjustments?? Your comments beggar belief!!! And there is nothing wrong with breakfast clubs. My son, who is 6 btw, goes to breakfast club at school every morning at 8am and loves it and has been since he started school.
Catchment is all that counts for school places I quote from your post at 10.32am today! If you read the article, the parents are unable to accompany their child in the taxi due to time restraints of getting to work! As for NHS flexi time, it is only available if the employee is able to still meet the needs of the service, therefore it may not be possible for hours to be changed! As for your child attending breakfast club, that is your choice, however this also means more expense not to mention that some of us do not want to palm our kids off from 8am-6pm when there is absolutely no reason to, which in this case there isn't. The child should have the right to attend a nearby school and the parents also have the right to choose the school their child attends!
Catlady 73 you make one excuse after the other to support this poor hard done by family, Flexi time is available within the NHS, in this womans case the difference in her start time would be only a matter of minutes so there would be no problem with the needs of the service, were not talking about a complete change of hours here just a difference in a few minutes.
[quote][p][bold]catlady73[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rollwithit[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Moordown1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rollwithit[/bold] wrote: For god's sake - we can all argue about the reasons for it but just take a look at the schools in question. She doesn't want her precious offspring to go to her in catchment school as it is a bad one. The schools she did apply for are all good ones. I would be willing to bet money that if she had been offered a taxi to take the child to Muscliffe for example she would have had no issue with it at all. And catlady, you may want to read my replies again as I cannot see where I have stated that catchment was the only criteria??? However, it is certainly a very important one. Priority will be given to those in catchment once all those meeting higher priorty criteria have been placed. To cherry pick the out of catchment schools over your own catchment school is, quite frankly, stupid in the extreme. Penhale, you are absolutely right in your comments. It's an inconvenience no more and one, which I believe, is more to do with the school they have been given than the distance involved! NHS have flexi working times and all schools these days have breakfast and after school clubs. How do they think everybody else who has a job does it? I work full time, raise my son, alone, and still manage to get him to school, 4 miles away, and to work by 9am. Get a grip.[/p][/quote]Who in their right mind is going to put a 4 year old child in a taxi to get them to school whether it is 4 mile journey or 400 yards away - I certainly wouldn't! The same goes for so called breakfast clubs and after school clubs. This is a 4 year old child, and some of the comments here seem to have lost sight of that!! The issue here is that there is no consideration given to personal circumstances when the school places are allocated, even though supporting information is asked for on the application form. It makes a mockery of the system, when there are many parents out there who have genuine reasons for their school preferences, and are not just placing the best schools on their list. If the council and the church schools are purely going to allocate by distance and catchment, then this information should not be asked for as it makes the whole process very misleading[/p][/quote]The idea isn't that the child go on it's own in a taxi! You accompany the child! They do no solely allocate by distance and catchment. I give up. People like you have no idea what you are talking about when you jump in to discussions. Educate yourself on what you are talking about THEN jump in. Supporting information is not requested so that they can accommodate people who don't want to go to their catchment school because it's not a good one, or because parents may have to make changes to accommodate school. Personal circumstances are considered when they are serious ones! Seriously, you honestly expect schools to take into account that they may have to make adjustments?? Your comments beggar belief!!! And there is nothing wrong with breakfast clubs. My son, who is 6 btw, goes to breakfast club at school every morning at 8am and loves it and has been since he started school.[/p][/quote]Catchment is all that counts for school places I quote from your post at 10.32am today! If you read the article, the parents are unable to accompany their child in the taxi due to time restraints of getting to work! As for NHS flexi time, it is only available if the employee is able to still meet the needs of the service, therefore it may not be possible for hours to be changed! As for your child attending breakfast club, that is your choice, however this also means more expense not to mention that some of us do not want to palm our kids off from 8am-6pm when there is absolutely no reason to, which in this case there isn't. The child should have the right to attend a nearby school and the parents also have the right to choose the school their child attends![/p][/quote]Catlady 73 you make one excuse after the other to support this poor hard done by family, Flexi time is available within the NHS, in this womans case the difference in her start time would be only a matter of minutes so there would be no problem with the needs of the service, were not talking about a complete change of hours here just a difference in a few minutes. penhale
  • Score: 0

6:39am Thu 17 May 12

Angry bird 2 says...

Penhale if you read the article again you'll notice her husband would be taking her child to school, as a nurse she probably starts work around 7.30am so there's a massive time difference between that & starting work at 9.30am after a school run. And no flexi hours is not an option for nurses. Imagine if they all decided to pop in for a few hours in between taking & picking there children up! There would be no service. You can't second guess things you clearly have no knowledge of. I am sure she would've looked in to changing her hours & it's clearly not an option!
Penhale if you read the article again you'll notice her husband would be taking her child to school, as a nurse she probably starts work around 7.30am so there's a massive time difference between that & starting work at 9.30am after a school run. And no flexi hours is not an option for nurses. Imagine if they all decided to pop in for a few hours in between taking & picking there children up! There would be no service. You can't second guess things you clearly have no knowledge of. I am sure she would've looked in to changing her hours & it's clearly not an option! Angry bird 2
  • Score: 0

7:27am Thu 17 May 12

ILOVEBOURNEMOUTH says...

I love what Cat Lady wrote last! :) Children first!
I love what Cat Lady wrote last! :) Children first! ILOVEBOURNEMOUTH
  • Score: 0

9:07am Thu 17 May 12

penhale says...

Angry bird 2 wrote:
Penhale if you read the article again you'll notice her husband would be taking her child to school, as a nurse she probably starts work around 7.30am so there's a massive time difference between that & starting work at 9.30am after a school run. And no flexi hours is not an option for nurses. Imagine if they all decided to pop in for a few hours in between taking & picking there children up! There would be no service. You can't second guess things you clearly have no knowledge of. I am sure she would've looked in to changing her hours & it's clearly not an option!
As I am employed within the N.H.S I do clearly have knowledge, as her husband would be taking the kids to school there would be no need to change her starting time at work so that's a non argument, the only issue would be, who picks the kids up after school, as the school is only two and a half miles further away than the one she wanted I cant really see how this affects her that much, what ever school her kids go to she would still have to arrange for them to be picked up in the afternoon, she has just had her nose put out of joint because she didn't get the school she wanted.
[quote][p][bold]Angry bird 2[/bold] wrote: Penhale if you read the article again you'll notice her husband would be taking her child to school, as a nurse she probably starts work around 7.30am so there's a massive time difference between that & starting work at 9.30am after a school run. And no flexi hours is not an option for nurses. Imagine if they all decided to pop in for a few hours in between taking & picking there children up! There would be no service. You can't second guess things you clearly have no knowledge of. I am sure she would've looked in to changing her hours & it's clearly not an option![/p][/quote]As I am employed within the N.H.S I do clearly have knowledge, as her husband would be taking the kids to school there would be no need to change her starting time at work so that's a non argument, the only issue would be, who picks the kids up after school, as the school is only two and a half miles further away than the one she wanted I cant really see how this affects her that much, what ever school her kids go to she would still have to arrange for them to be picked up in the afternoon, she has just had her nose put out of joint because she didn't get the school she wanted. penhale
  • Score: 0

2:20pm Thu 17 May 12

Moordown1 says...

penhale wrote:
Angry bird 2 wrote:
Penhale if you read the article again you'll notice her husband would be taking her child to school, as a nurse she probably starts work around 7.30am so there's a massive time difference between that & starting work at 9.30am after a school run. And no flexi hours is not an option for nurses. Imagine if they all decided to pop in for a few hours in between taking & picking there children up! There would be no service. You can't second guess things you clearly have no knowledge of. I am sure she would've looked in to changing her hours & it's clearly not an option!
As I am employed within the N.H.S I do clearly have knowledge, as her husband would be taking the kids to school there would be no need to change her starting time at work so that's a non argument, the only issue would be, who picks the kids up after school, as the school is only two and a half miles further away than the one she wanted I cant really see how this affects her that much, what ever school her kids go to she would still have to arrange for them to be picked up in the afternoon, she has just had her nose put out of joint because she didn't get the school she wanted.
Then you should be very well aware that for some job roles within the NHS, flex-time is just not an option.
I read the article, and the other articles associated with it. Can you honestly say that making families travel across town at peak times is the best option. Is providing transport to do this a sensible use of resources?
This issue has been addressed too late. Birth rates are hard to predict, but once children are born into a borough, the authorities have 4 years to implement change. Why wasn't something done sooner? This situation may not have been completely solved, but surely could have been lessened.
Of course parents want their children to go to a good school, what responsible parent wouldn't.
The bottom line is that the schools are no longer where the population is. Perhaps it would be better to close schools or merge schools in areas of low population, and reinstate schools where there is a local need - Townsend primary for example. Councillor Whittaker is absolutely right to force this back onto the councils agenda but too late for this intake.
Parents are given preferences for schools, but perhaps one of these should compulsorily be the catchment school? Even so, this wouldn't solve the problem, would it?
[quote][p][bold]penhale[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry bird 2[/bold] wrote: Penhale if you read the article again you'll notice her husband would be taking her child to school, as a nurse she probably starts work around 7.30am so there's a massive time difference between that & starting work at 9.30am after a school run. And no flexi hours is not an option for nurses. Imagine if they all decided to pop in for a few hours in between taking & picking there children up! There would be no service. You can't second guess things you clearly have no knowledge of. I am sure she would've looked in to changing her hours & it's clearly not an option![/p][/quote]As I am employed within the N.H.S I do clearly have knowledge, as her husband would be taking the kids to school there would be no need to change her starting time at work so that's a non argument, the only issue would be, who picks the kids up after school, as the school is only two and a half miles further away than the one she wanted I cant really see how this affects her that much, what ever school her kids go to she would still have to arrange for them to be picked up in the afternoon, she has just had her nose put out of joint because she didn't get the school she wanted.[/p][/quote]Then you should be very well aware that for some job roles within the NHS, flex-time is just not an option. I read the article, and the other articles associated with it. Can you honestly say that making families travel across town at peak times is the best option. Is providing transport to do this a sensible use of resources? This issue has been addressed too late. Birth rates are hard to predict, but once children are born into a borough, the authorities have 4 years to implement change. Why wasn't something done sooner? This situation may not have been completely solved, but surely could have been lessened. Of course parents want their children to go to a good school, what responsible parent wouldn't. The bottom line is that the schools are no longer where the population is. Perhaps it would be better to close schools or merge schools in areas of low population, and reinstate schools where there is a local need - Townsend primary for example. Councillor Whittaker is absolutely right to force this back onto the councils agenda but too late for this intake. Parents are given preferences for schools, but perhaps one of these should compulsorily be the catchment school? Even so, this wouldn't solve the problem, would it? Moordown1
  • Score: 0

2:22pm Thu 17 May 12

Moordown1 says...

Then you should be very well aware that for some job roles within the NHS, flex-time is just not an option.
I read the article, and the other articles associated with it. Can you honestly say that making families travel across town at peak times is the best option. Is providing transport to do this a sensible use of resources?
This issue has been addressed too late. Birth rates are hard to predict, but once children are born into a borough, the authorities have 4 years to implement change. Why wasn't something done sooner? This situation may not have been completely solved, but surely could have been lessened.
Of course parents want their children to go to a good school, what responsible parent wouldn't.
The bottom line is that the schools are no longer where the population is. Perhaps it would be better to close schools or merge schools in areas of low population, and reinstate schools where there is a local need - Townsend primary for example. Councillor Whittaker is absolutely right to force this back onto the councils agenda but too late for this intake.
Parents are given preferences for schools, but perhaps one of these should compulsorily be the catchment school? Even so, this wouldn't solve the problem, would it?
Then you should be very well aware that for some job roles within the NHS, flex-time is just not an option. I read the article, and the other articles associated with it. Can you honestly say that making families travel across town at peak times is the best option. Is providing transport to do this a sensible use of resources? This issue has been addressed too late. Birth rates are hard to predict, but once children are born into a borough, the authorities have 4 years to implement change. Why wasn't something done sooner? This situation may not have been completely solved, but surely could have been lessened. Of course parents want their children to go to a good school, what responsible parent wouldn't. The bottom line is that the schools are no longer where the population is. Perhaps it would be better to close schools or merge schools in areas of low population, and reinstate schools where there is a local need - Townsend primary for example. Councillor Whittaker is absolutely right to force this back onto the councils agenda but too late for this intake. Parents are given preferences for schools, but perhaps one of these should compulsorily be the catchment school? Even so, this wouldn't solve the problem, would it? Moordown1
  • Score: 0

6:52am Fri 18 May 12

LouiseWD says...

This is such a non story. If they are both nurses then they are on a **** sight more money than a lot of families including mine and we have to use childminders to facilitate our early starts at work. she needs to sensibly work out her options, not cry to the paper!
This is such a non story. If they are both nurses then they are on a **** sight more money than a lot of families including mine and we have to use childminders to facilitate our early starts at work. she needs to sensibly work out her options, not cry to the paper! LouiseWD
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree