|
|
 |
| |
Give us a Church of England secondary
• LABOUR London Assembly member Murad Qureshi’s comments about the issues facing new academies may have some basis in Westminster (Academies, an idea that’s out of control, March 29).
However, he is off the mark with his information regarding the proposed new secondary school for Camden.
He says: “Additionally, an academy run by the Church of England, when so many members of the central London community are from other faiths or none, would not be appropriate as that choice already exists at secondary level.”
In Camden, there are 13 Church of England primary schools out of 40 available to parents. All of these schools deliver excellent results.
At secondary level in Camden there is no Church of England school. Why is it that the council is happy to give parents the choice at primary level, but not at secondary level?
It seems obvious to me, as a parent, that if families choose to attend one of these 13 schools, they have faith in the level of education their children will receive in an environment which teaches within a moral framework.
All these schools continue to attract children from other faiths. Why should it be any different for a new Church of England secondary school?
MELANIE QUACQUARELLI
West Heath Road, NW3
• AS new parents living in Camden, we were delighted to hear that the Church of England is proposing to bid to run a new secondary school in the borough.
The popularity of the Church’s primary schools in the area testifies to us just how good the Church is at running schools.
The primary schools seem to be popular with parents from all backgrounds, if their ethnic and social mix is anything to go by. There seems every prospect that the ethos and high quality of education provided by church primary schools would be just as much in demand from parents seeking a secondary school for their child.
LINDA AND ANDREW WARNOCK
(Address supplied) NW2
• IT'S a shame our MPs are so ideological when it comes to the education of our children (Scramble for academy, March 8). I suspect their agenda is driven more by political grievances than anything substantial.
The Church of England has a pretty good reputation for running schools in our borough. Given that their existing schools are oversubscribed and achieve some of the best results, why not allow them to run a secondary school too? If you have a winning formula, it seems pretty strange to experiment with something else.
It’s wrong to suggest such a school will be “socially divisive”. The church has run schools for centuries and we have not suffered social meltdown as a result, so I doubt it would happen now.
If anything, they help instill a bit of the respect agenda our politicians are so keen on. I know many parents would welcome the chance to send their children to a decent school with an emphasis on a widely-accepted moral standard.
If it made the children behave better, it would then be a real community school by making our borough a less intimidating place to live in.
PHILLIP TAYLOR
Kidderpore Avenue, NW3
• COUNCILLOR Andrew Mennear is busy ticking his own boxes while Rome burns (Swiss Cottage school site ticks all the boxes, March 22).
After all, who set the boxes – size, affordability, and availability? What happened to the boxes labelled “need” and “planning for the future”? Is it any coincidence that the ticked boxes are in Cllrs Mennear’s and John Bryant’s wards?
When trying to justify the decision, Cllr Mennear cites the number of Camden students who are, as yet, unplaced with regard to secondary school entry. According to this, Regent’s Park and Somers Town are more in need of a secondary school than the area south of the Euston Road. But that’s where South Camden Community School is. Similarly, Swiss Cottage and Belsize need a school, but that’s where Haverstock and Quintin Kynaston are.
And, Kilburn has Quintin Kynaston, Hampstead, Queen’s Park, St Augustine’s (C of E mixed) and St George’s (RC mixed) within a short distance. The area south of the Euston Road has one mixed school in that distance – South Camden.
Thirty-four pupils in Regent’s Park and Somers Town obviously didn’t apply to South Camden. If they had, there would be many more unplaced pupils south of the Euston Road. How many in the other areas cited would be unplaced if they had applied to their local schools? The figures mean nothing without more information.
Meanwhile, south of the Euston Road, we have no local school. Our “choice” is to pick a school that may select our child (either by religious, banding or other means) or to guess a school that might be under-subscribed, because we don’t fall in the catchment area of any school that is oversubscribed. That’s the only choice: the school picks us, not vice versa.
And, if the council could stop being so parochial, the adjacent parts of Islington and Westminster are in the same bind. There is no secondary school down here and any places at our most accessible one will be taken up once the King’s Cross development is completed. If any decision is delayed, the only available sites in this area will be housed over, making the situation not only worse but irredeemable.
Last year, 204 children south of Euston Road transferred to state secondaries. Those from the north of the area managed to get into South Camden, the other 170 ended up at more than 36 schools.
Could Cllr Mennear tell us which one of the 36 is our school?
ALBIE FIORE
Bedford Place, WC1 |
 |
|
|
|
