:rant::rant:
When to original proposals to close Wisewood school were announced it was logical that areas within the Wisewood catchment area questioned the catchments.

When the council decided in June to reverse this decision (pending a further review) and to retain current catchments then this did not seem an issue. People within Wisewood catchment were happy with Wisewood school – (the best option is always to save WW school).

However, now that this whole issue is wide open and on the table again I would like to raise issues regarding the catchment areas. I have started a separate thread as the other one should concentrate on the merger issues which I feel are different to these catchment issues.

Should the merger go ahead or even the split school option then the catchment areas need to be reviewed for the following reasons.

1. Retaining the current pattern of catchment boundary is not showing a forward thinking/environmentally friendly move which is looking at the “green” future of the North West area discussed.

2. Distance to school. It is madness to continue with pupils from the Northern part of WW catchment attending MG either as a merged or split school. For example - residents in Wadsley Park Village would be able to walk to school if they were able to attend their LOCAL school of Bradfield. If the merger/split school goes ahead and they have to attend Myers Grove then this will result in either being bussed or personally driven which just gives rise to an increase in the carbon footprints we leave. I would like to see details from the council of the recommended routes that children from all communities currently take to Bradfield from the relevant communities along with the recommended routes for people within WPV and Marcliffe areas to get to MG.

3. Despite previous comments – walking is not a feasible option for many children. In reality is would take 45 mins plus which is not acceptable, especially in winter etc.

4. Transport concerns. Increases in carbon footprints are one of the main issues. Wisewood was and is the most walked too school is Sheffield and strong indications show that it is very feasible for people to walk to Bradfield but not Myers. Why hasn’t anyone looked or considered closing WW and the lower half go to Myers and the top half of the catchment go to Bradfield???

5. Despite any promotions from the council people in Marcliffe/WPV would use cars to ship children to school – from my campaigning this is the majority feeling. No one has said that they would use public transport. This also will impact the bottlenecks etc in the Malin Bridge area. I would like to know the estimated impacts of this.

6. I would like to know the recommended routes for vehicular transport and public transport the council/you would prefer people to use. I assume that the council would not want to increase so called “rat runs” and would actively encourage the main road routes (thus increasing traffic problems for everyone in the North area).

7. Health Issues. I have read a lot in the press etc recently regarding the nations so called “fat children”. This indicates that children are increasingly doing less exercise and that children’s weight overall is increasing. Parents want to be able to ensure the health of their children and as Bradfield school is within reasonable walking distance parents and children would chose this rather than vehicular/public transport. Again, this is the majority view from speaking to at least 200 parents while campaigning on this issue in WPV.

8. Safety Issues. In my view and that of many parents of this estate then the route to get to Myers Grove just isn’t a safe route. Again, if the catchments are not changed then I would like to see the councils recommended routes. The number of secondary/main roads which children would have to cross is ridiculous. There are some crossings but no where near enough to ensure the safety of our children. However, more crossings means more delays to traffic means more impact to others and not just parents of children in the areas impacted. From WPV to Bradfield school there is just 1 road to cross and while it is Worrall Road it is relatively low volume traffic. Some may say that this is a rural road so the safety of children walking could be an issue but I would prefer this as I would expect children to all walk to and from school on the one route at roughly the same time so I feel there is safety in numbers.

9. Green issues. This covers all associated issues. Increase traffic, increase carbon emission. Bussing all children from Stannington to Bradfield is madness when Myers is within walking distance for them etc. If Myers was in their catchment choice (dual catchment option) then this would reduce the need for as much transport etc. as people would have the option of either school and more would select Myers as they local (especially if the transport the Bradfield was removed).

10. Historical aspect. The residents of WPV have discussed this in length and I feel that the catchment for this particular area should be returned to Bradfield as it was prior to 1999. Interestingly, Bradfield Parish Council and Bradfield School opposed the change in catchment at that time and wanted WPV within Bradfield Catchment. In my view the reasons for wanting WPV in the catchment during 1999 can not have boiled down to them just wanting the £910k provided by the developers, I’m not aware of the others reasons but just because the 910K isn’t in the pot should not mean that they can say absolutely not to increasing the catchment area. Other factors must have come into the equation so I would be very interest in the reasons behind the decisions in 1999 and the change of view from the school and Bradfield Council. (I am only of the view that they to keep catchments as they are because this is what’s being said by other campaigning communities such as Stannington and Bradfield).

11. Historical aspect. I understand that in 1972 Sheffield City Council took over the Wortley Rural District and I understand a “no detriment” clause was agreed and a promise was made that children who live in Bradfield Parish would be able to attend Bradfield School as of right. As WPV is within Bradfield Parish then this should return to the fold/catchment. If this does not happen then details of this clause need to be made public etc. If catchments are not changedthen I would like details of this clause and if/how this can be implemented by residents of WPV who are within the Parish.

12. Changing catchments and offering dual catchment to Stannington, WPV and Marcliffe areas gives the most parental choice as this provides dual catchment which offers a choice to more parents in more locations.

13. Wisewood school is in ward 17 (Hillsborough), Bradfield and Myers are in ward 24 (Stannington). Without rereading all the documents from before can anyone please let me know why Bradfield were out of the equation for this and why ward boundaries have been discounted in the first place?

14. As I understand it arent the government looking to improve, rebuild ALL secondary school (the ones that dont close anyway), why werent Bradfield, Myers and Wisewood all in the pot together?

15. Other threads on this forum have said that the plans are to rebuild Bradfield and make it bigger in the near future. If this is the case, why have people opposed changing the catchments on the basis that some people may be displaced????

16. Bradfield were excluded but why have they still not been brought into the pot. Why are proposals still being done on WW and MG? When you look at the areas as a whole and consider what parent groups have been saying re traffic, distances to school etc, land to extend, rebuild, rehouse while buidling etc then bringing Bradfield into it would certainly answer alot of concerns.

17. I understand that the figures "show" that pupil numbers are falling in the Northwest of Sheffield. The northwest includes Bradfield school. What are their projected numbers as wouldn’t it be a contradiction on everything labour are saying if the long term plans are to rebuild this school. IE/ you would be planning to rebuild a school where pupil numbers are dropping. What is being done to address pupil numbers at Bradfield on the medium to long term?

:rant::rant:

i agree as a mother of a child at marlcliffe i feel the walk from marlcliffe to myers would be to long for an 11yr old - 45 mins - yet to walk to bradfield would be about 20 mins - what will happen is that we'd end up taking him and sitting in traffic at malin bridge - good for the environment !!! wheres the thinking - what school do the people who decide go to and do the walk for 45 mins ?? bet they dont

if the catchment areas could be changed, then we would not have this problem with this merger ! at all the consultation meetings this was pointed out!! along with the 250 thousand it cost for the bussers per year!!
the answer to this from alena and harry harpham that bradfield was a good school !! and catchment areas could not be changed!!!

in other words if they was changed bradfield school numbers would drop , and they dont want to close bradfield school do they now !!!!!!
add to this Jim WATKIN (bradfield governor) put the consultion doc together and now bradfield school is to made bigger soon !! all sounds very fishy to me!!!!!!

i suppose it would be very difficult to change the catchment areas as those with siblings already at the school would have to go to different schools which would surely cause a problem!!

i agree stannington is closer to myers grove and for years the rival pupils have thrown bricks at each other and allsorts. but this would obviouly cause problems with siblings changing schools.

i live in dungworth and know people who atended the meeting where they were told if the catchment area changes it will be the people further out such as areas like dungworth storrs and hollow meadows that miss out! where are these pupils meant to go?

i agree as a mother of a child at marlcliffe i feel the walk from marlcliffe to myers would be to long for an 11yr old - 45 mins - yet to walk to bradfield would be about 20 mins - what will happen is that we'd end up taking him and sitting in traffic at malin bridge - good for the environment !!! wheres the thinking - what school do the people who decide go to and do the walk for 45 mins ?? bet they dont

I used to live close to you and walk to Myers every day and it doesn't take 45 minutes.
And i don't believe i could make it to Bradfield in 20 minutes from where i live now in Stannington!
I know this isn't the main reason for peoples discontent but seeing as you mentioned it - IMHO 45 minutes walking excercise in a morning and afternoon for a kid is exactly what they need.

One of the things I want to stress is that I dont want the current catchment to change. I fully understand how people in Upper Stannington/Dungworth etc feel.

My point is that if Bradfield is going to be rebuilt in the not too near future then it can be made to accomodate extra from WPV and Marcliffe. This will not displace anyone currently in the catchment......I suggest dual catchment for WPV/Marcliffe/Stannington so they can choose Bradfield or Myers. (This will keep the school on their toes to ensure good performance dont you think!!!)

My other bugbear is the fact that Sheffield tax payers pay £250k per year to bus children to Bradfield school. On one hand they are saying its OK for WPV kids to find their own way to Myers but hey, lets carry on shipping Stannington kids to Bradfield - its not logical !!!

I used to live close to you and walk to Myers every day and it doesn't take 45 minutes.
And i don't believe i could make it to Bradfield in 20 minutes from where i live now in Stannington!
I know this isn't the main reason for peoples discontent but seeing as you mentioned it - IMHO 45 minutes walking excercise in a morning and afternoon for a kid is exactly what they need.

as per the thread
3. Despite previous comments – walking is not a feasible option for many children. In reality is would take 45 mins plus which is not acceptable, especially in winter etc.


i meant that from here it would take about 20 mins to bradfield school not from stannington - and it would probably take about 45 mins from marlcliffe to myers by the time theyve gone through wisewood and up stannington -

as per the thread
3. Despite previous comments – walking is not a feasible option for many children. In reality is would take 45 mins plus which is not acceptable, especially in winter etc.


i meant that from here it would take about 20 mins to bradfield school not from stannington - and it would probably take about 45 mins from marlcliffe to myers by the time theyve gone through wisewood and up stannington -

Soz thats what i was saying, i used to walk it and it doesn't take that long.

This is something that gets pushed under the carpet every time its mentioned. There are councillors actively opposing this and i'd like then to stand up and say why. He/she has responsibilty for the whole area and a wider responsibilty toward Sheffield. Attitudes that appear protectionist only highlight the injustice of the current catchments. It seems a case of we're alright so why should we change. A catchment can happen easily and to say it's no possible is nonsence.

Children would no be displaced because anyone at the school would remain. If Areas that are futrher away insist on using Bradfiled at the expnese of the rest of the community then the transport funding should be removed. Why should we pay for there unjustified privelege.

this arguement is continueing on the big Wisewood/MG thread. Some of the "official" views are interesting to say the least. Chav it might be worth putting you comments in to our parish councillor so he can answer in an "unbiased" manner. At the moment there is no logic to the stance being taken. There is no justification on distance/cost/size/traffic. I am still trying to assertain what the justification is although all i seem to be getting is "it wouldn't be fair" and "its histroic" both of which i consider to be retoric.

Chav it might be worth putting you comments in to our parish councillor so he can answer in an "unbiased" manner. At the moment there is no logic to the stance being taken. There is no justification on distance/cost/size/traffic.

For info, I have issued an email to every single councillor in Sheffield detailing the comments in the original post on this thread. I have also sent them links to this thread and the Wisewood merger thread.

Lets hope someone takes the time to read the information on offer. I have had one reply so far which states "My understanding is that this has basically already discussed on which primaries should feed which secondary During the second consultation". I am going to reply that the issue is not relating to primary schools.......I have a feeling that councillors will be voting on issues where they dont fully understand the implications, this is not about primary feeder schools at all. I dont blame councillors in wards not effected but I do feel they need to know the whole picture. At least this councillor took time to respond.

PS/ I havent emailed parish councillors. Its my understanding that they are not invovled with the voting on this (am I wrong here???).

Cuey, you seem to disgree with Sanmans (PC) view but in reality he does support a change in catchment for WPV if this is not detrimental to current catchment areas. My arguements in the original post also supports no change to current catchments, just to extend this. I think there is room at Bradfield for us and "other" areas together. Long term his suggestion would also be to direct Stannington to MG for future generations - an interesting idea, this means current familys are OK but future ones moving into the area know it will be Myers catchment.

I also feel that dual catchment would benefit all, this would keep the school on their toes to ensure success in future.

PS/ I havent emailed parish councillors. Its my understanding that they are not invovled with the voting on this (am I wrong here???).

Cuey, you seem to disgree with Sanmans (PC) view but in reality he does support a change in catchment for WPV if this is not detrimental to current catchment areas. My arguements in the original post also supports no change to current catchments, just to extend this. I think there is room at Bradfield for us and "other" areas together. Long term his suggestion would also be to direct Stannington to MG for future generations - an interesting idea, this means current familys are OK but future ones moving into the area know it will be Myers catchment.

I also feel that dual catchment would benefit all, this would keep the school on their toes to ensure success in future.

Parish councillors do not vote but DO have a bigger voice that the average voter. There opinion is often taken before changes are made. He has said a change is acceptable as long as it doesn't effect STannington which we both know is not going to happen. He also put in previsos for determining how long people had lived in Stannington. Again that isn't going to happen.

I reality he is selling out other areas of the Parish to benefit Stannington. Only he can give his motives for this.

Parish councillors do not vote but DO have a bigger voice that the average voter. There opinion is often taken before changes are made. He has said a change is acceptable as long as it doesn't effect STannington which we both know is not going to happen.

Cuey, thanks for this. I will send details through to Parish Councillors to see if I can put across our points. All I and others can do is keep plugging away at this. The two relevant threads are my lifeblood at the moment, the only place I can express my views. (I really should look after the kids though who are running around the house like loonies while I am busy typing:hihi::hihi:)

Excellent thread - the chavs. Perhaps you should have been one of the officers looking at this and then we would all be a lot happier.

Yes, Bradfield should be included in the whole WW/MG equation. Catchment areas is key to this. Just a few points from our end of town. There was a lot of door knocking and parent meetings (independent from the council). There were general concerns about the proposed changes to the catchment areas meaning that part of Oughtibridge and all of Wharncliffe Side would have been taken out of the Bradfield catchment.
The problem with this was that there is no obvious place for the kids to go to, Stocksbridge is even further away, already over-subscribed and with the massive new estate being built at Corus and other housing developments in Deepcar, Stocksbridge was not an option. So where?
The other issue was perhaps more parish/community focused and links with the points you are making about the 'Historical Context'. Oughtibridge and Wharncliffe Side are funny in a way because they don't really belong to Stocksbridge or Sheffield. In a sense we are isolated and get looked over when it comes to a lot of things. All of the local councillors always come from Stocksbridge area and are normally on the Stocksbridge town council aswell. We feel a bit left out. However, we are both part of the Bradfield Parish.
I am aware of this 1972 old Wortley document. Should there be any legal action it is abit of a winner. However, I have not seen the contents of this and would like too.
Your points over carbon-footprints and buses i'm still not sure about as I don't know enough about them. The problem is that in semi-rural areas there is always going to be an issue about this particularly in bad weather. It does not matter which school kids in Oughtibridge and Wharncliffe Side got to they will have to go by bus or car.
What is very clear, as you have outlined in your posts here and on the other thread, is that the council have made a dogsdinner out of all of this and the only way to do this is to look at it again including all of the schools, transport links and especially catchment area issues.
If there is money on the table to improve all of the schools then it should be a fantastic thing. But somehow it has all got cocked-up. What especially concerns me is the bickering between parents from the two different schools. This will get worse if the merger goes ahead and even worse when parents from Oughtibridge and Wharncliffe Side get involved (trust me on that one!?).
Finally Bradfield does have falling numbers but the improvements, to my mind, are nothing more than a chinese whisper at the moment. With this council's record on consultation and promises on improvements,none of us at this end of town are holding our breath.

Can I just ask why a walk of 45mins is unacceptable? When I was at secondary school (in Newcastle) my walk was about that long, and I had by no means the longest journey! It was perfectly acceptable then, so why is it unacceptable now? :confused:

Can I just ask why a walk of 45mins is unacceptable? When I was at secondary school (in Newcastle) my walk was about that long, and I had by no means the longest journey! It was perfectly acceptable then, so why is it unacceptable now? :confused:

Ask the kids that go to Bradfield from Stannington. We have to pay £250 thousand a year so they don't have to do it. To be honest i think 45 minutes is too much for any child to have to walk. I accept a reasonable walking sitance but 45 mins is probably too far.

I do like Chavs idea. open up the catchment but remove all the free transport. Parents can then make up their own mind.

Can I just ask why a walk of 45mins is unacceptable? When I was at secondary school (in Newcastle) my walk was about that long, and I had by no means the longest journey! It was perfectly acceptable then, so why is it unacceptable now? :confused:

I see your point. A straight forward walk to school of 45 minutes should be fine. BUT. Some of the roads etc that we are talking about are rural/semi-rural and quite dangerous particularly in winter.
The other issue raised, perhaps a little emotively but still having a point, was about child safety from undesirables/perverts etc in the area. This again was pertinent in Winter time.

Can I just ask why a walk of 45mins is unacceptable? When I was at secondary school (in Newcastle) my walk was about that long, and I had by no means the longest journey! It was perfectly acceptable then, so why is it unacceptable now? :confused:

The reason I posted this was to have people question my points so thanks.

This is a good question. Everyone will have different opinions on how long a walk is before it is unacceptable for children getting to and from school. (How long is a pice of string???).

What is boils down to though is that people have the choice to use private transport and this (from my campaigning in WPV) is what the majority of people will do as the walk in question in not acceptable to the residents of WPV. This therefore means that this impacts on other things (traffic, etc).

It also miffs alot of people that should the merger or split school site options go ahead then the powers that be have said that either a long walk or 2 bus rides (public tranport) is fine for WPV residents. If you live in Stannington then to get to Bradfield it is also a long walk or two bus rides. However, this is the bug bear - it currently costs all Sheffield taxpayers £250k per year for buses to be put on to get children to Bradfield. When the coaches were originally introduced then yes, it may have been tricky to get to Bradfield but times change. Public transport between Stannington and Bradfield School/Worrall exist and provide regular services etc. Alternatively, parents from there may choose private transport - this wouldnt impact Malin Bridge as they would use Long Lane route then drop down to main route into town (Penistone Rd).

From the report to cabinet (4/6/07) I quote
2.1 The two key reasons for this proposal to change the pattern of school provision in the North West are:

• the need to have a coherent strategy for investment of the ‘once in a generation’ opportunity offered by the Building Schools for the Future capital; and,

• to address, as part of that strategy, the current overcapacity and projected future fall in the number of school places required to serve the North West area.


I say, incorrect. By consulting and proposing on Wisewood and Myers this does not address school provision in the North West area. The North West includes Bradfield school which has been ignored (for some reason!!)

What is the strategy for Bradfield and Stocksbridge schools ?? Both of these are within the same service district as WW/MG.

From the report to cabinet (4/6/07) I quote
2.6 The recommendation that the Myers Grove site should be used to locate the new school was made after having undertaken an exhaustive review of the alternatives.

Incorrect I say. An exhaustive review would have included Bradfield school and the possibilites that arise from included this school.

The chavs you are right again! I think that you are building a good strong case here. I hope the councillors you contacted are listening.
I think the threads on this forum are more 'exhaustive' than the officers so called review. Its getting embarrasing now

From the report to cabinet (4/6/07) I quote :

4.23 The key reasons for this proposal are:

• To acknowledge and respond to concerns raised during the initial consultation process on the proposed replacement of Myers Grove and Wisewood Secondary Schools.

• To acknowledge the concerns of respondents who wished to be prioritized for admission to their nearest secondary school because of the distance and nature of journey to the proposed new school on the Myers Grove site.


So, the official line is to acknowledge and respond to concerns raised during the initial consultation process but when it comes to concerns re admission to nearest secondary school the official lines to to "acknowledge". Where is the "and respond to" for this one !!!!!!

Yes, WPV did put alot of points across and they have not been responded to other than "maintain status quo and bugger what you say".

From the report to cabinet (4/6/07) I quote :

Issue 2: Expansion of Bradfield Secondary School

5.5 The option of expanding Bradfield Secondary School to ensure that none of the existing catchment area pupils would be displaced was raised at public meetings and in correspondence. An option could be considered for temporary expansion for the peak year in 2011. Under Option 3 there would be an estimated oversubscription of around 25 pupils in 2011 based on current pupil numbers and average uptake from within the Bradfield catchment area. This option was suggested in order to ensure that no children within the current catchment area would be displaced as a result of additional children from the Marlcliffe catchment area being added.

5.6 The expansion of Bradfield Secondary School is an option that the Authority would argue against given the fact that the number of pupils in its catchment is falling. However, the arguments about displacement are strong and the Authority can understand why there would be a desire to have sufficient places to accommodate all catchment pupils.


The response to this one doesnt add up. The option was a "temporary" increase of approx 25 pupils for one year and go for option 3. Why argue against a temporary increase for 1 year only.

From the report to cabinet (4/6/07) I quote :

5.23 The new provisions of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 do provide free transport to secondary aged children from low-income families to attend 1 of three schools between 2 and 6 miles from their home address. Low income is defined as those on free school meals or in receipt of the Working Tax Credit. In addition to the new provisions the statutory requirement remains whereby free transport must be provided to the catchment or nearest school where it is more than three miles away. It remains to be seen to what degree free transport will be increased under the new provisions but the free school meals allocation at Marlcliffe is only 9.5% of the total school population so any impact is likely to be minimal.



Since when was Stannington/Loxley/Bradfield/Dungworth more than 3 miles away from Bradfield school ???

From the report to cabinet (4/6/07) I quote :

5.42 The Authority will be responsive of any criticism of the process with a view to learning lessons in the future. It is normal practice to consult directly with Headteachers, Governors and parents likely to be affected but the Authority does want to hear from any stakeholder with an interest in any proposed change.

:hihi::hihi:This one really did make me laugh out loud !!!! Need I say more.

I hope the council is responsive. In the words of Sir Alan; "Mr Crossley-Holland, Mr Kerslake you're fired!"

From the report to cabinet (4/6/07) I quote :

5.44 Many pupils attending Bradfield secondary receive free transport either because they live more than the statutory walking distance (3 miles) from the school or because the required journey would be unsafe to walk. Some parents asked if Marlcliffe children would receive free transport to the new school.

5.45 The Authority would provide free transport only where the statutory criteria were met. Normally free transport would only be provided where the statutory walking distance was exceeded.


Who defines if a route is unsafe to walk ???? Walking from WPV to MG is unsafe to walk in many peoples eyes.....whats wrong with using public transport ? Two buses from Stannington to Bradfield. Can we have the definition behind this "safe to walk" criteria?

From the report to cabinet (4/6/07) I quote :



Since when was Stannington/Loxley/Bradfield/Dungworth more than 3 miles away from Bradfield school ???

It is more than 3 miles via a safe walking route.

It is more than 3 miles via a safe walking route.

As I said before "Who defines if a route is unsafe to walk ???? Walking from WPV to MG is unsafe to walk in many peoples eyes.....whats wrong with using public transport ? Two buses from Stannington to Bradfield. Can we have the definition behind your "safe to walk" criteria?

A route is safe to walk if it has a pavement. There are no safe walking routes from Dungworth or Bradfield and the safe route from Stannington is more than 3 miles.

I'd like to know where the "rumours" about Bradfield being rebuilt are coming from?
The governing body have been told they "were on the next list" for the past 4 years now!

I'd like to know where the "rumours" about Bradfield being rebuilt are coming from?
The governing body have been told they "were on the next list" for the past 4 years now!

I went on the Building for School website (http://www.bsf.gov.uk/). Without looking further it does say in on the first page :

"The aim is to rebuild or renew every secondary school in England over a 10-15 year period."

I would say it is therefore not a rumour that Bradfield will be rebuilt. However, there is a chance it may only get a renew but IMO this building has been left to rot for a while and is probably not fit for purpose or meeting building regulations.

From the report to cabinet (4/6/07) I quote :



Who defines if a route is unsafe to walk ???? Walking from WPV to MG is unsafe to walk in many peoples eyes.....whats wrong with using public transport ? Two buses from Stannington to Bradfield. Can we have the definition behind this "safe to walk" criteria?

I wonder if the safe walking criteria has anything to do with footpaths. Neither Spout Lane or Long Lane have footpaths and they would be the most direct route for children walking from Stannington to Bradfield School.

I went on the Building for School website (http://www.bsf.gov.uk/). Without looking further it does say in on the first page :

"The aim is to rebuild or renew every secondary school in England over a 10-15 year period."

I would say it is therefore not a rumour that Bradfield will be rebuilt. However, there is a chance it may only get a renew but IMO this building has been left to rot for a while and is probably not fit for purpose or meeting building regulations.

No mention of mergers then?

I wonder if the safe walking criteria has anything to do with footpaths. Neither Spout Lane or Long Lane have footpaths and they would be the most direct route for children walking from Stannington to Bradfield School.

I suspect that this will be the official reason given. If this is the case does every school child in the UK get a free ride to school which live in rural communities. (No). Ive known people living in the Peak District and this certainly didnt happen, even when there were no footpaths between villages.

I would expect the powers that be to be able come up with a water-tight reasons that cannot be contradicted by proving this doesnt happen in other areas. I dont think this is it as its soo open to contradiction so it has to be another reason, doesnt it ??

I went on the Building for School website (http://www.bsf.gov.uk/). Without looking further it does say in on the first page :

"The aim is to rebuild or renew every secondary school in England over a 10-15 year period."

I would say it is therefore not a rumour that Bradfield will be rebuilt. However, there is a chance it may only get a renew but IMO this building has been left to rot for a while and is probably not fit for purpose or meeting building regulations.

If they change the catchment, the school will have to be rebuild / refurbed & extended to accomadate the extra kids.
The renewing of schools is all but decided by 1 man at the council, who comes across as a very nice man when you talk to him, then proceeds to go back on everything he tells you.
Bradfield are not on the "current" list to be rebuilt, It has been a few times, but it keeps being moved down the list!!!!!
I & certain members of the governing body, & staff agree that some of the buildings are "not fit for purpose" & if we get some bad storms this winter we could suffer some serious damage to the buildings.

If they change the catchment, the school will have to be rebuild / refurbed & extended to accomadate the extra kids.

Bradfield are not on the "current" list to be rebuilt, It has been a few times, but it keeps being moved down the list!!!!!

I & certain members of the governing body, & staff agree that some of the buildings are "not fit for purpose" & if we get some bad storms this winter we could suffer some serious damage to the buildings.


From the report it says that the governers of Bradfield feel that “Option 1” – no change to the existing catchment area is the only one they can support.
Can you advise why this is the case? If a change to catchment had been supported are you not saying in the previous post that Bradfield will HAVE to be rebuilt/refurbed. It appears that you keep getting moved down this list so this was a way to put yourselves at the top surely ??

Moving down the list is not the same as being off the list. Do you agree that Bradfield school will be rebuilt/refurbed at some point as prmised by the government (dont forget, every schools in England will have this, unless they are closed first!!).

From the report it says that the governers of Bradfield feel that “Option 1” – no change to the existing catchment area is the only one they can support.
Can you advise why this is the case? If a change to catchment had been supported are you not saying in the previous post that Bradfield will HAVE to be rebuilt/refurbed. It appears that you keep getting moved down this list so this was a way to put yourselves at the top surely ??

Moving down the list is not the same as being off the list. Do you agree that Bradfield school will be rebuilt/refurbed at some point as prmised by the government (dont forget, every schools in England will have this, unless they are closed first!!).

Bradfield has on various occations been "at the top of the list" for PFI rebuild, & on every occasion been "removed to allow a more deserving" (read failing) school to replace it. From what I can pick from the report, & I must admit to not having read the whole report yet, but isn't the word "temparary" used?

Bradfield is in a bit of a no-win situation here, It's a rural school on the fringe of the city that doesn't give the parties any political gain, the parish council have very little to do with the school, & a lot of it's strengths lye in the fact that it is a relativley small school, & that if the results were the bottom side of average, I'm sure the council would have tried to close it as they did when they took over the school in the 70's.

As a direct result of my views and that of many others on this site I think that there is an overall trend coming through that Sheffield City Council have not made a very good job of this whole issue from start to finish.

Do you agree?? this doesnt matter what side/camp/way forward you approve of. It could have been handled better from the beginning.

Please note that I have set up a petition to 10 Downing Street. Please sign this petition if you want your voice to be heard or at least you want the council to take note of people's frustrations. We may not approve of the opinions of the councillor posting on this site but how many come on the forum ?? Im sure they will here about this petition in due course if lots sign it.

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/SheffieldCouncil

The petition says:


Quote:
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to review and oversee the BSF programme within Sheffield. Within Sheffield and in particular the North West area of the city there is currently widespread dismay and dissappointment at the Councils handling of a proposed merger of Wisewood and Myers Grove school.

People within the communities effected are arguing for a wholescale properly planned policy that covers the whole of Sheffield. Indications seem to show that the council hasn't got an acceptable plan for tackling falling rolls in a city wide context.

Sheffield City Council need to go back to basics and looked at the city as a whole and put forward a comprehensive plan to deal with this issue city wide.

As a result of this debacle many people have lost faith in Sheffield City Council as a whole.

For more detailed information please feel free to read posts on the Sheffield Forum website titled : Should Wisewood.merger still go ahead and What Bradfield catchment area should change.

I've signed. I would hope everyone who wants a full and proper review rather than the farce that has taken place, would sign.

Isn't today the big pro / Anti demo. It could be a laugh; pointless but a laugh.

"What do we want a new school. Not a new school. 1 new old ones. 3 refurbed ones. when do we want it, now." :huh:

The sooner there is a new review that includes all schools in the area the better. Lets face it the current reports are designed to say what the sponsor wants.

I attended the meeting in Council today. It was interesting ....they are my first thoughts.

I dont think that the outcome was "unexpected". What appauled me was the behaviour of people in there. Perhaps its me, but it was just a party political circus.

Two camps sitting in the bull pit, two camps sitting in the public gallary. The amount of heckling, comments thrown when people speaking, jeers. This was more prevelant on the pro-merger side (sitting to the left as you looked down) but I think this boiled down to the fact they knew they had won the backing of the new "Sheffield Party".

What would have been more interesting would have been for the vote to be done before the debate, the debate was just a waste of time. I wish I had taken my pea shooter into the meeting - everyone else was acting like schoolchildren so I should have been allowed to.

PS/ What is the process now for all the unanswered questions. Red, if you see this could you please confirm. There are still alot of issues which have not been answered even though the merger has been approved. Will these just be swept under the carpet?

Chav's, I've signed the petition, but doc you really think big Gords going to get involved? after all they all **** in the same pot & I'm sure he will back them to the hilt anyway.

This all boils down to the people of Stannington wanting their cake and been able to eat it

This all boils down to the people of Stannington wanting their cake and been able to eat it

No it's deeper than that. Someone somewhere in the town hall has got a master plan. What it's implications are for the north west cluster g, as it's known is a mystery:huh:

Chav's, I've signed the petition, but doc you really think big Gords going to get involved? after all they all **** in the same pot & I'm sure he will back them to the hilt anyway.

To be absolutely honest, the answer is no. However, I am a great believer in people having the chance to put their point across. Do nothing and you get nothing!!!

At the end of the day, whatever the outcome, I want to be able to sleep at night knowing that I did what I could. Unfortunately, alot of this country is apathetic when it comes to politics or perceived political issues. I guess I am guilty of this aswell unless it is something that concerns me. I dont blame people for doing nothing - the way that the powers that be conduct themselves (and believe me I saw this in action today) does not provide opportunities for us "common folk" to question, scrutinise, query or debate. They thrive on people's apathy. Before anyone comes back on this little speach of mine lets me give you an example :

In this whole merger debacle, information was issued to parents etc of the schools involved. I campained within my own area and you would not believe the number of people who were unaware. These are the ones who dont have children so didnt come under the target audience. However, why were the target audience only parents of existing school children. Why not target all children, why not all constituents. After all, the transport issues alone certainly effect more than the parents of the school children.

Come 2011 when Malin Bridge comes to a stand still twice a day because 500 plus children are attempting to cross one junction at roughly the same time I am sure drivers will have opinions then.

On a final note, I would still like to know what the process is now for all the unanswered questions. Redrobbo, if you see this could you please confirm. There are still alot of issues which have not been answered even though the merger has been approved. Will these just be swept under the carpet?

I've noticed red has been quiet this afternoon, wonder if we hear from him in the next week.

I agree that the whole thing has benn "handled badly" by the council officers, & to some extent the councillors can & should have brought them to task about it.

I dont think it's a done deal yet though. I think it may have to go infront of the secratary of state for education, may be wrong but I'm sure there's another step before the school can be closed.

Whats Angela Smiths stand on it & if enough people get in to her hair she could & should fight the corner for her constituants, never mind what her personal views are.

Whats Angela Smiths stand on it & if enough people get in to her hair she could & should fight the corner for her constituants, never mind what her personal views are.

I suppose that she has to represent all of her constituents and not just those who live on Wadsley Park who want to go to Bradfield or those against the merger. I bet that she's glad that she is moving to a new constituency next time.

I suppose that she has to represent all of her constituents and not just those who live on Wadsley Park who want to go to Bradfield or those against the merger. I bet that she's glad that she is moving to a new constituency next time.

It's not just the peeps on WPV that want their kids to go to brady that this effects though does it.
IMHO it has a far graeter impact on the whole of the north west of the city's educational supply.

Will people move from the area because the school they have "bought in to" (Wise wood) is being closed down? will it push house prices up in certain streets because of catchment area? (Worral & Oughtibridge).

Will the council do the same to primary schools then?
If roll numbers are falling, then have got to be the next thing on the hit list!

The only people this seems a bonus for is the people in catchment for Myers.

It's not just the peeps on WPV that want their kids to go to brady that this effects though does it.
IMHO it has a far graeter impact on the whole of the north west of the city's educational supply.

Will people move from the area because the school they have "bought in to" (Wise wood) is being closed down? will it push house prices up in certain streets because of catchment area? (Worral & Oughtibridge).

Will the council do the same to primary schools then?
If roll numbers are falling, then have got to be the next thing on the hit list!

The only people this seems a bonus for is the people in catchment for Myers.

This is true

This is true

Just think how big a "stink" that will kick up!!!!!!!!!

No it's deeper than that. Someone somewhere in the town hall has got a master plan. What it's implications are for the north west cluster g, as it's known is a mystery:huh:

Maybe a back hander from Bloors for a nice exclusive housing estate on the WW site don`t forget tho no kids numbers ARE falling

Before I get shouted down which I am sure most of you will do I have been keeping an eye on this thread because this does effect people close to me (you know who you are).

Anyway reading down from a post from “The Chavs” my main concern now is what is going to be done about the already ridiculous bottle neck situation at Malin Bridge. From where I sit in my nice house in Loxley which at the moment in Loxley Schools catchment area so my daughter will go to Bradfield and on FREE transport all I can see is:

More traffic congestion at Malin Bridge
People using side roads through Hillsborough to get to work which could result in more accidents on those roads
These roads in Hillsborough crumbling away before the new school is built as there already in an atrocious condition
Feeder Schools / junior schools being under threat - who is going to use Wisewood Junior if it is in fact staying open when they could get in a feeder school and have more chance of preferred secondary school
Siblings going to different schools - this is a big issue around the S2 area of the City already
Sheffield tax payers paying £250k a year to bus Stannington kids to Bradfield when the new school is only down the road.
Who will receive a back hander when the new WPV type development is built in the WW site and how many luxury apartments can they build?

Yes these are my views and I think we as a combined community should now take it on the chin that the new school is being built but ensure we get answer to how this is going to effect EVRYONE.

Don’t even start me on if the ever get the Loxley Town Ship over the ground - is this the underlying reason behind this have councillors already have plans for this which will include a new brighter and bigger Bradfield School!

I suppose that she has to represent all of her constituents and not just those who live on Wadsley Park who want to go to Bradfield or those against the merger. I bet that she's glad that she is moving to a new constituency next time.

Its a while since we've heard from you Lodger.

As we are aware which camp you were sitting with I would be very interested to hear your views on the following : or if you could invite others from Stannington (Upper that is) to comment. Thanks

The catchment areas need to be reviewed for the following reasons.

1. Distance to school. It is madness to send pupils from the Northern part of WW catchment to MG. For example - residents in Wadsley Park Village would be able to walk to school if they were able to attend Bradfield. The merger proceeding will result in either being bussed or personally driven which just gives rise to an increase in the carbon footprints we leave.

2. Transport concerns. Increases in carbon footprints are one of the main issues. Wisewood was and is the most walked too school is Sheffield and strong indications show that it is very feasible for people to walk to Bradfield but not Myers. Why hasn’t anyone looked or considered closing WW and the lower half go to Myers and the top half of the catchment go to Bradfield??? Would you have supported Bradfield and MG being rebuilt and catchment sorted between the 2?


3. Do you want people in Hillsborough to have increased traffic on their side roads. More traffic means more rat runs. This will increase traffic problems for everyone in the North area.

4. Safety Issues. In my view and that of many parents of this estate then the route to get to Myers Grove just isn’t a safe route. The number of secondary/main roads which children would have to cross is ridiculous. There are some crossings but no where near enough to ensure the safety of our children. However, more crossings means more delays to traffic means more impact to others and not just parents of children in the areas impacted. From WPV to Bradfield school there is just 1 road to cross and while it is Worrall Road it is relatively low volume traffic. Some may say that this is a rural road so the safety of children walking could be an issue but I would prefer this.

5. Green issues. This covers all associated issues. Increase traffic, increase carbon emission. Bussing all children from Stannington to Bradfield is madness full stop. This costs Sheffield tax payers £239k per annum. If Myers was in their catchment choice (dual catchment option) then this would reduce the need for as much transport etc. as people would have the option of either school and more would select Myers as they local (especially if the transport the Bradfield was removed).

6. Do you think something very fishy is happening with Bradfield School????? I certainly do. Bradfield Parish Council and Bradfield School opposed the change in catchment in the late 90's and wanted WPV within Bradfield Catchment, now they dont. In my view the reasons for wanting WPV in the catchment during 1999 can not have boiled down to them just wanting the £910k provided by the developers, I’m not aware of the others reasons but just because the 910K isn’t in the pot should not mean that they can say absolutely not to increasing the catchment area. Other factors must have come into the equation.

7. Wisewood school is in ward 17 (Hillsborough), Bradfield and Myers are in ward 24 (Stannington). Do you or anyone else know why Bradfield were out of the equation for this and why ward boundaries have been discounted in the first place?

8. Why werent Bradfield, Myers and Wisewood all in the pot together?

9. Other threads on this forum have said that the plans are to rebuild Bradfield and make it bigger in the near future. If this is the case, why have people opposed changing the catchments on the basis that some people may be displaced????

10. The official figures "show" that pupil numbers are falling in the Northwest of Sheffield. The northwest includes Bradfield school. Do you agree it would be a contradiction on everything labour are saying if the long term plans are to rebuild Bradfield school. IE/ It is a condition of the BSF that schools where pupil numers are falling are addressed. What is being done to address pupil numbers at Bradfield on the medium to long term?

Don’t even start me on if the ever get the Loxley Town Ship over the ground - is this the underlying reason behind this have councillors already have plans for this which will include a new brighter and bigger Bradfield School!

Very interesting Skippy. I have been wondering why those in power keep ignoring my questions as to why Bradfield school has kept out of the deal when its supposed to be the North West area.

You may have hit on something here.

Let me get this straight to clarify. Bradfield is in the Northwest area. Bradfield has falling pupil numbers - the council say so!!!! The pupil numbers fall after 2011 aswell. The council have said dont worry about Bradfield, it can make its numbers up by people applying from WPV and North Marcliffe.

Point one - the conditions of the BSF state that the council must have a robust and comprehensive plan to address falling foll numbers. Forgive me for being stupid but is relying on neighbouring catchments wanting to come to the school robust -----NO! NO! NO! NO!

Point two - why hasnt Bradfield been earmarked for a rebuild ??? Keeps getting put off apparently. However, every school in England will have this (unless its closed down first:hihi:). If it was rebuilt why couldnt it has accomodated those extra 30 or so places for 2011 where people "MAY" have been displaced. After 2011 the numbers drop dont forget.

COULD IT BE - AS SKIPPY SAID

The Loxley township is on the cards all along and that new development will be placed under Bradfield Secondary school.

Its a while since we've heard from you Lodger.

As we are aware which camp you were sitting with ?

I'd be interested to know which camp you think that I sit in?

I'd be interested to know which camp you think that I sit in?

From memory you were very "strongly" supportive of the Stannington campaign to support option 1 which was no change to catchment/status quo. This led me to believe that you were a Stannington resident.

I may have been wrong and if I was then sorry. I would still be interested in your views. Perhaps if you do have friends in upper Stannington who were around when the catchment debate was going ahead let them know this is still bubbling away. I want to understand the alternative views/reasonings/ issues.

I dont feel the fat lady has sung yet so I will be pursuing this with all my might.

I think there is alot of very dodgy things going on here. To be honest I had not even thought of the new Loxley Village having any impact on catchment areas. Round two . . ding . . .ding.

I think there is alot of very dodgy things going on here. To be honest I had not even thought of the new Loxley Village having any impact on catchment areas. Round two . . ding . . .ding.

The more you hear, the worse it gets don't you reckon.....

They cannot re-develop two schools close together. This is one of the reasons the merger is going ahead.

I suspect that Wisewood was in the firing line long before the announcement. Funny how they built the sports section (with a large chunk of someone else's money) which then meant that they could conveniantly say - "sorry, no room to rebuild/expand Wisewood".

Now Wisewood is out of this way what does this mean to Bradfield. Well, it now has no school within close proximity. But, its pupil numbers are dropping. How can anyone ever say that this school should have any benefits from the BSF programme. In theory they shouldnt get anything.

Are the parents of Bradfield happy to continue with a school which is not fit for purpose. I dont think so (but it appears they chose this???). Did the Bradfield catchment areas have a chance to secure BSF funding by agreeing to increase catchment - yes. This BSF funding could have provided a new school that could accomodate all the projected numbers in a new revised catchment (noone needed to be displaced !!!!!!) Did they take it, NO. WHY - who knows.

The more you hear, the worse it gets don't you reckon.....




Now Wisewood is out of this way what does this mean to Bradfield. Well, it now has no school within close proximity. But, its pupil numbers are dropping. How can anyone ever say that this school should have any benefits from the BSF programme. In theory they shouldnt get anything.

Are the parents of Bradfield happy to continue with a school which is not fit for purpose. I dont think so (but it appears they chose this???). Did the Bradfield catchment areas have a chance to secure BSF funding by agreeing to increase catchment - yes. This BSF funding could have provided a new school that could accomodate all the projected numbers in a new revised catchment (noone needed to be displaced !!!!!!) Did they take it, NO. WHY - who knows.

How do you know that bradfield has agreed to increase standard numbers?
numbers dropping? I think you'll find thats projected numbers!!!

As well as kids walking to school, traffic and carbon blah blah, do the council and those concerned have to take into account making and breaking people ?. ie if North Stannington can't go to Bradfield will the owners will get major negative equity on thier property and would the opposite happen if WPV gets into the catchment for Bradfield, would WPV owners get a sudden major increase in property prices. Just a thought....

when many bought off plan the area was in Bradfield. It was only changed after money was needed for WW. Its hardly an argument that will influence school planning. To be honest i can't even see it making and sizable difference in the current market.

How do you know that bradfield has agreed to increase standard numbers?
numbers dropping? I think you'll find thats projected numbers!!!


Im a bit confused with what your saying. I havent mentioed Bradfield increasing standard numbers? I have put "projected numbers" ??

The reason I put are dropping in bold etc is purely down to the fact that the council have told us and each other that their figures are correct. This is why the merger is proceeding (among many). The figures the council quote are what the BSF believe so if the council say they are dropping then it must be true !!!!

From memory, I do recall that Stannington group challenged the projected figures re the options and they estimated approx 10 over the council figures to predict children "may" be displaced. Not too much of a difference.

This does lead me to another point - if WPV/North Marcliffe had dual catchment and Upper Stannington had dual catchment then dont you think in future years they would lose all this so called historical reasoning. Logic would prevail and people would actively opt for the best performing school which fit into their personal lifestyle - if they wanted their little ones to walk and not to far go for the nearest, if they were happy with public transport for being a personal taxi then go for the furthest.

Wouldnt this be a win/win solution - people chose a school best suited to their needs. No liability on council/tax payers to get children to school. Both schools to chose from are state of the art/modern school. The other side is something Sanman has posted on I see ----- it would take away the need for people to target an exclusive area where house prices are pushed up purely on catchment area. Dual is best.

As well as kids walking to school, traffic and carbon blah blah, do the council and those concerned have to take into account making and breaking people ?. ie if North Stannington can't go to Bradfield will the owners will get major negative equity on thier property and would the opposite happen if WPV gets into the catchment for Bradfield, would WPV owners get a sudden major increase in property prices. Just a thought....

No. Or should I say, this can be prevented in my opinon.


If dual catchment were given then there wouldnt be a knee-jerk reaction from parents. Without this, we may well see this over the next year or so. People may win or lose on this one.

A previous suggestion also comes into play here. According to the council figures, only 2011 is a problem year. All other years are not an issue and children would not be displaced. Why dont the council therefore guarantee all current children from birth to year group effected a place at Bradfield school if they want it for those living within the current Bradfield catchment area. We are supposidly only talking 2011 when the intake may be over subscribed (but then even only by 20-30 kids). With immediate effect make it be known that children born after dd/mm/yy will fall into a dual catchment area and their children will be subject to dual catchment status.

This would blow most of the arguements away that I have seen so far and offers a workable solution !!!! It would also prevent people from buying/increasing house prices unrealistically. (I dont think house prices should be effected personally).

The 20 to 30 extra kids is very hard to timetable in, with the DFEE putting more compusary lessons in each year, schools are finding it difficult as it is. If a new class was generated, a whole addition set of teachers would be required & a full set of new classrooms, Just like the other temparery classes we have now. The cost would be huge.

If a new class was generated, a whole addition set of teachers would be required & a full set of new classrooms, Just like the other temparery classes we have now. The cost would be huge.

Under my proposed solution Bradfield would be a rebuilt, super school dont forget !!! It wouldnt have temporary classes. The ones you have now would be gone, the crap building you have now would be gone.

Re the teachers - the spin from the council and pro-merger groups were that a rebuild means you get better staff. There !! You would have better staff. An instant super school. All funded by BSF - not the council, not Sheffield.

Seriously, can you please expand on your comments. If you allow 30 additional children in for one year group only what are the implications. Why would an additional set of teachers be required - couldnt the year group be split to accomdate a few extra in each class rather than an extra class on the year group? Same with regards classrooms - why would you need extra. Couldnt you increase capacity in existing ones?

PS/ I am not trying to be clever here. I genuinely dont know. If a year intake is for example 180 this gives 6 classes (we used to call them forms in my day, I dont know what they are now in secondary schools as I still get confused with Y1 - 11:hihi:). If the intake were to be 210 for one year only and then it goes back down to 180 or less every year after that couldnt they just have 35 in each class/form. Alternatively, have 7 forms for that year only, how many extra staff would be needed. (Logic says 1) but isnt this counter balanced by the extra budget - bums on seats and all ??

The new schools been promised loads of times.
Re staff, the staff at Bradfield are top quality, on the upper pay scales, if a new school has trust status, they have to apply for there jobs again, & not neccasserily on the same pay scale!, this causes nerves, & some will go to other schools. So not a win win situation.
Class sizes are at the moment "managable" I think they should be smaller but thats my view, so an increase in numbers for each class for the five years they are at the school.
Fitting an extra five in a class would mean 3 desk's & 5 chairs, this could cause an issue of safety if an emergancy required the room to be evacuated.
If you do "squeeze" a few extra in at which point do you stop?
The higher the standard number, the higher the school budget, but the spend goes up as well, "good staff" cost money. I for one wouldn't want a fresh faced graduate teaching any of my children, but thats a personal view!

If the catchment where opened up as suggested wouldn't this balance out. Those nearer Bradfield would use it. If all Transport funding was then allocated fairly some in areas further away from Bradfield who currently get additonal travel funding would chose to use the new school. It should end up being no more oversubscribed than it already is.

I'm sure many that use it at the moment only do so because the travel is subsidised.

If the catchment where opened up as suggested wouldn't this balance out. Those nearer Bradfield would use it. If all Transport funding was then allocated fairly some in areas further away from Bradfield who currently get additonal travel funding would chose to use the new school. It should end up being no more oversubscribed than it already is.

I'm sure many that use it at the moment only do so because the travel is subsidised.

People wont choose the new school over Bradfield as it's an unknown quantity, just because it's got shiny new buildings does'nt mean that the performance will be what is expected for possibly a few years.

People wont choose the new school over Bradfield as it's an unknown quantity, just because it's got shiny new buildings does'nt mean that the performance will be what is expected for possibly a few years.

Really.....Oh My God !!!! Surely this isnt true !!!! I was always of the impression that 21st century building would automatically transform the childrens brains into super powers!!!! I can believe that I have been disallusioned for so long. If the school opened in Sept 2011 I thought we would be looking for at least 90% straight A's for the exams in June 2012. (This isnt a dig at you Tints, its aimed at those that really do think this!!!))


OOPSSS, sorry, I was just choking taking my tongue out of my cheek.:gag::gag:

I do agree with Cuey though, if you give the school 5 years to prove itself lets look forward a few years to the ones being born now. Take away the buses to Bradfield and you live in Stannington with dual choice - lets see, both schools doing well. Do you want your child to travel to Bradfield on public transport or take them yourself or walk down to the local school who's performance has been fine for 5 yrs since it was opened ???

Logic would say, go back to the old system of catchment area school only IMO. If you had no option but to go to the school in your catchment area there would'nt be the problems we have today!!!
(tongue in cheek):hihi::hihi:

Come 2011 when Malin Bridge comes to a stand still twice a day because 500 plus children are attempting to cross one junction at roughly the same time I am sure drivers will have opinions then.

It never came to a standstill back in 1980s when I and all the other Malin Bridge pupils walked to Myers every day. I lived on Cotswold Road, 20min walk to Myers. No problem.

2. Transport concerns. Increases in carbon footprints are one of the main issues. Wisewood was and is the most walked too school is Sheffield and strong indications show that it is very feasible for people to walk to Bradfield but not Myers. Why hasn’t anyone looked or considered closing WW and the lower half go to Myers and the top half of the catchment go to Bradfield??? Would you have supported Bradfield and MG being rebuilt and catchment sorted between the 2?
Exactly what I suggested last year and wrote to the consultation saying so. Pupils north of Far Lane should go to Bradfield, south of Far Lane to Myers.

4. Safety Issues. In my view and that of many parents of this estate then the route to get to Myers Grove just isn’t a safe route. The number of secondary/main roads which children would have to cross is ridiculous. There are some crossings but no where near enough to ensure the safety of our children.
The main crossing problem is Loxley Road outside the Yew Tree. That junction needs to be upgraded to make it easier and safer to cross. When trying to cross toewards the Yew Tree you need eyes in the back of your head to see traffic coming from behind you.

6. Do you think something very fishy is happening with Bradfield School?????
Definately well dodgy.

7. Wisewood school is in ward 17 (Hillsborough), Bradfield and Myers are in ward 24 (Stannington). Do you or anyone else know why Bradfield were out of the equation for this and why ward boundaries have been discounted in the first place?

Ward boundaries are irrelevant for school catchement areas. Wards are artificial entities that have to be exactly the same size to provide representation to the council. Catchement areas are different sizes to provide pupils for different sized schools.

Ward boundaries are irrelevant for school catchement areas. Wards are artificial entities that have to be exactly the same size to provide representation to the council. Catchement areas are different sizes to provide pupils for different sized schools.

Not quite true, if you look on the council website there are 28 wards all of different sizes. Do you know what the wards are for ?? Im not trying to be funny but if its not for planning what are they for ??

The merger has been done based on planning for the North West but the North West hasnt been included in the plans in full and the wards havent been used so I am still at a loss as to why the Council are still saying this is for the "North West" area.

http://eduplugins.sheffield.gov.uk/schools/ward.aspx

Not quite true, if you look on the council website there are 28 wards all of different sizes.
No, there are 28 wards all of the same size, 13500 electors, within a few hundred.

Do you know what the wards are for ?? Im not trying to be funny but if its not for planning what are they for ??
Yes I do know what they are for, and they are not for plannng. They are purely, only and solely for providing representives to the Council.

Proposal :

Sheffield City Council review the catchment areas for the North West area of Sheffield.

I feel that the political parties within Sheffield have been concentrating on battles regarding Wisewood and Myers Grove but have been ignoring issues relating to the whole of the North West.


Can someone please advise what the process is for getting this on the agenda. Do I have to target local councillors? I know the socs gorup mentioned people in the BSF programme they had been on touch with - can anyone give me a name? Any advise on how to take this campaign further would be appreciated. Thanks

I used to live close to you and walk to Myers every day and it doesn't take 45 minutes.
And i don't believe i could make it to Bradfield in 20 minutes from where i live now in Stannington!
I know this isn't the main reason for peoples discontent but seeing as you mentioned it - IMHO 45 minutes walking excercise in a morning and afternoon for a kid is exactly what they need.

Who says they need 45 minutes exercise in a morning and afternoon? What about the exercise they get at school? What if they are members of a sporting team - They would be tired by the time they had to go training.

I would not expect my child to have to be walking for 1and half hours on their school journey - think about it 45 minutes walking in the belting down rain - wouldnt that be great for them.

We are not talking about 14-15 year olds but 11 year olds - do you not realise that 45 minutes walking alone when you are 11 is a very scary thing to do not only for the children but for the parents as well as they do not feel it safe for their children at this age to be walking that far!!

I would not expect my child to have to be walking for 1and half hours on their school journey - think about it 45 minutes walking in the belting down rain - wouldnt that be great for them.


I wouldnt either. I agree it is too much too much to ask. Why do we have morning and evening rush hours.....it's because fully grown adults wont put up with this either. We dont go out to work for 7 hours and then spend 1.5 hrs walking to and from on top of this. Most people get to and from work as fast as possible in the comfort of their car. For all those that have said walking isnt a problem I would ask what you and the members in your family do to get to work??

Can someone please advise what the process is for getting this catchment issue on the agenda. Do I have to target local councillors? I know the socs group mentioned people in the BFS programme they had been on touch with - can anyone give me a name? Any advise on how to take this campaign further would be appreciated. Thanks

I wouldnt either. I agree it is too much too much to ask. Why do we have morning and evening rush hours.....it's because fully grown adults wont put up with this either. We dont go out to work for 7 hours and then spend 1.5 hrs walking to and from on top of this. Most people get to and from work as fast as possible in the comfort of their car. For all those that have said walking isnt a problem I would ask what you and the members in your family do to get to work??

Can someone please advise what the process is for getting this catchment issue on the agenda. Do I have to target local councillors? I know the socs group mentioned people in the BFS programme they had been on touch with - can anyone give me a name? Any advise on how to take this campaign further would be appreciated. Thanks

I would contact local councillors but I think the issue has been raised regarding changing catchment areas, there was the consultation on catchment area change - as usual the council decided not to change catchment - no surprises there then.

If you think that your local councillors would take up the challenge of trying to change the catchment area then try them other than that I think it would have to be Harry Harpham and Jonathan Crossley-Holland.

i was told on a number of times at the consulation meetings that catchment areas was ""set in stone and could not be changed" alena p
first time the merger was goin ahead , after they tried to change these catchment areas !! very odd!!

No, there are 28 wards all of the same size, 13500 electors, within a few hundred.

Yes I do know what they are for, and they are not for plannng. They are purely, only and solely for providing representives to the Council.


Thank you for this. Not sure I quite understand the logic or fully understand what they do but at least I know a little more.

If anyone is interested I have posted under the Wisewood thread the following as a direct result of someone saying parents should be working together etc:

Thank you for your post.

Can I make a suggestion? Would anyone like to join me for a walk from Wadsley Park Village to Myers on Friday afternoon? DMartin, perhaps you would like to join me and ask a few who are pro-merger if they would also like to join me. Lets walk and talk about how we can all work together to help the children get to the new school and lets work together to try to understand each others issues.

I know Harry Harpham has done this walk previously but lets see if we can pull people together to talk as we walk.

If people are interested I will post a time etc for meeting. PS/ I will extend this invite to Harry Harpham and Red aswell.

Before I start I would like to say I fully understand and sympathise with the residents of WPV why they would like the catchment area to change especially when you bought your houses on the understanding that you would be in the catchment.

Some of your reasons I find a little hard to swallow. Firstly how you feel the distance to walk to Myers is too far and therefore parents would use their cars to transport their children to school, and the reason that the children from Stannington are closer to Myers than Bradfield.

As I resident of Loxley, I know that a number of residents drive from WPV to Loxley Primary past their local school of Wisewood Primary to take their children to Loxley. The traffic at school times is horrendous and dangerous as parents are only interested in find a parking space and have no consideration for local residents walking to school as they just run up the kerb whether you are there or not. (Yes, I know it's not just WPV parents buy I am trying to justify for reasons for the change). Loxley's Head Jan Fletcher has sent numerous letters home about this situation so I guess a few local residents have complained, I for one and my neighbours are fed up with it.

Shouldn't you be implementing your reasons at Primary level.

Some of your reasons I find a little hard to swallow. Firstly how you feel the distance to walk to Myers is too far and therefore parents would use their cars to transport their children to school, and the reason that the children from Stannington are closer to Myers than Bradfield.

As I resident of Loxley, I know that a number of residents drive from WPV to Loxley Primary past their local school of Wisewood Primary to take their children to Loxley. The traffic at school times is horrendous and dangerous as parents are only interested in find a parking space and have no consideration for local residents walking to school as they just run up the kerb whether you are there or not. (Yes, I know it's not just WPV parents buy I am trying to justify for reasons for the change). Loxley's Head Jan Fletcher has sent numerous letters home about this situation so I guess a few local residents have complained, I for one and my neighbours are fed up with it.

Shouldn't you be implementing your reasons at Primary level.


I do agree with some of your points. I do think it must be hard for residents close to any school when it comes to traffic problems. Mrs Fletcher in particular has problems with parents dropping off where the yellow zig-zags are, made worse since the lollypop lady position hasnt been filled.

You do have to remember though that Loxley Primary School actively promotes for people to apply from outside the catchment area. Without these additional spaces being filled this would have serious consequences. Loxley currently fills approx 18 spaces per year from catchment and it needs 30 to be filled to ensure budgets etc. Loxley attracts people from Worrall, WPV, Wisewood, Stannington, Hillsborough etc. If it continues to remain full then this benefits the long term future of Loxley residents children as it should not have other problems associated with falling numbers. (Wisewood secondary is full but look at that though, still faced with closure and they are turning people away this Sept!!).

I think travel issues are slightly different for Primary level. The children are younger. I dont think many people expect primary children to get to school off their own steam (unlike secondary).

With relation to WPV itself. This estate is relatively new. Lots of parents already had their children established at a school before moving onto the estate so probably felt it was better to stay with the current school. Wisewood is not the local primary for WPV - Marcliffe is. Within WPV children go to lots of different schools at primary level : Oughtibridge, Marcliffe, Wisewood, Loxley, Sacred Heart, Hillsborough just to name a few.

Thanks Chavs

I know Loxley has trouble filling it's places with pupils each year and has to advertise for pupils. But I still think that people would use their car to take the kids to Bradfield instead of walking, and if the busses were taken off can you imagine how many cars would be trying to use the turning circle.

I agree with you about primary children not making their own way to school, but theres nothing stopping the parents walking as well. I know this would then bring in issues with working parents but everything just rolls into another situation.

I just wish that there was a way to resolve this matter without upsetting the children and their parents, I just can't see it happening though.

I just wish that there was a way to resolve this matter without upsetting the children and their parents, I just can't see it happening though.

Me neither.

Lots of people have posted views and comments under this thread and the other Wisewood one.

Can I make a suggestion? Would anyone like to join me for a walk from Wadsley Park Village to Myers on Friday afternoon?


Time - 12.30 Please PM me.

I know Harry Harpham has done this walk previously but he has agreed to do this again. This is a chance to put your queries and questions direct to him. Its also a chance to pull people together (possible from different sides/camps) to talk as we walk.

i agree as a mother of a child at marlcliffe i feel the walk from marlcliffe to myers would be to long for an 11yr old - 45 mins

45 min walk, too much for an 11 year old, what is the world coming to?!

At 11 I was catching two busses to school from Longley to Ecclesfield.

45 min walk, too much for an 11 year old, what is the world coming to?!

At 11 I was catching two busses to school from Longley to Ecclesfield.

and is it safe for a 11 year old now, was it alot safer when you was younger!! because now kids fight with knifes, not there fist , now as said before malin bridge is over the limit of pollution from cars!! should our children have to suffer this!!
also in years to come car fumes have been proven to coz cancer!!

whos would be to blame from this if a child got cancer from having to be made by our council to walk thru this to get to school

harry harpham did a walk from marcliffe and it took over 40 mins, he was wet thru! you know wot he went home after and got changed !!!! then went to a wisewood all dry !!!
lets not forget the consultation doc was all wrong !! and still we wait from nov 06 for a traffic report where is this ??? are labour having trouble trying to make one up or sumthing !!!!

and is it safe for a 11 year old now, was it alot safer when you was younger!! because now kids fight with knifes, not there fist , now as said before malin bridge is over the limit of pollution from cars!! should our children have to suffer this!!
also in years to come car fumes have been proven to coz cancer!!

whos would be to blame from this if a child got cancer from having to be made by our council to walk thru this to get to school


The last time I walked / bussed it was 1995 and I’ll expect my kids to do the same - lazyitis is a disease.

As for Cancer, you're verging on the ridiculous here. Do you think carcinogenic pollutants can't get into the car or something? Maybe if so many parents did drive their kids to school the roads around Malin Bridge that you are complaining about wouldn't be so congested.

Leg-end.....

Honestly, the walking issue is such a small part of the overall problem it shouldnt really need be looked at individually.

You need to look at this in the wider context then you may get an idea of the wider implications and wider problems which effects so many other things. This has a much larger impact on other people, issues, problems etc than just the child walking 45 mins to school.

Leg-end.....

Honestly, the walking issue is such a small part of the overall problem it shouldnt really need be looked at individually.

You need to look at this in the wider context then you may get an idea of the wider implications and wider problems which effects so many other things. This has a much larger impact on other people, issues, problems etc than just the child walking 45 mins to school.

I know, i'm sorry, i was just coming back to edit the post. I'll leave you to discuss the wider things, but the cancer comment.. I mean WTF!?

The last time I walked / bussed it was 1995 and I’ll expect my kids to do the same - lazyitis is a disease.

As for Cancer, you're verging on the ridiculous here. Do you think carcinogenic pollutants can't get into the car or something? Maybe if so many parents did drive their kids to school the roads around Malin Bridge that you are complaining about wouldn't be so congested.

wtf there is 7 deaths from car fumes to 1 death from road accident! also a point has been raised that kids now in years to come are getting cancer when they are older thru built up areas!!
my point is that my kids would walk to school i have no problem with this !!
but with the malin bridge traffic this will get worse!! the council have said the pollution is above high allready in the area ! and like chav has said this is just ONE of the problems kids have they are loads more!! its nothing to do with lazy kids m8 at all once you know all the facts about this by all means have your say when you know wot your on about!!!!:hihi:

Leg-end.....

Honestly, the walking issue is such a small part of the overall problem it shouldnt really need be looked at individually.

You need to look at this in the wider context then you may get an idea of the wider implications and wider problems which effects so many other things. This has a much larger impact on other people, issues, problems etc than just the child walking 45 mins to school.

there are loads of problems about the merger, catchment areas, traffic, and the so called falling numbers and i could go on!! this all needs to be answerd by the labour council but they dont want to answer !!!:cool:

45 min walk, too much for an 11 year old, what is the world coming to?!

At 11 I was catching two busses to school from Longley to Ecclesfield.

I am the mum of an 11 year old girl and there is no way I will ever let her walk all the way to stannington on her own.

It is my job as her one of her parents to ensure her safety at all times at the age she is - who are the council to take this right away from me or any other parent who feels the same way?

Hi all, if any of you have been following this thread you will be aware that I had a meeting with Harry Harpham to discuss a few things.

I hope the following is of interest to some of you. I havent gone into too much detail on my thoughts/reactions from Harry's
comments as I wanted it to reflect what was said on both sides.

One alternative option, in simplistic terms, is to review the whole north area. Rebuild both Myers and Bradfield and split the catchment evenly between the two. Why wasn't this considered, especially as all school are included in the BSF programme.

Bradfield is going to be in the BSF programme and will be rebuilt under it by 2012. When Bradfield is rebuilt it will not be increased in size. Mr Harpham acknowledged that Bradfield attracted pupils from elsewhere due to its performance. It is was rebuilt to say 1500 then it would attract this number of pupils but this would have a detrimental impacts on schools elsewhere. Due to its location it will not be increased in size. I did ask why Bradfield and Myers were not being rebuilt together and both being made a 975 place school and the catchment being split more evenly (Bradfield currently 900, new Myers 1050). Again, they would not look to increase the size of Bradfield school so this is out of the equation. Mr Harpham also discussed that lines have to be drawn somewhere and wherever this is it would not please everyone (for example, if the catchment line was Dykes Hall Rd, there would always be a group that this would displease). Bradfield pupil number forcasts show that catchment children figures do fall but they will always be able to attract pupils from out of catchment area.

Now that this whole issue has been reversed again I would like to raise issues regarding the catchment areas. I hope that this raises awareness within the council and people discuss the issue and hope that someone can deal with the feelings within my community. I will be campaigning as much as I can to get this on the agenda again.

The issue of catchment areas has been voted on and this is now a closed matter. Mr Harpham acknowledged my views but there is nothing more to be done on this. The option to retain status quo (option 1) has been approved and will be what happens moving forward. Under the terms of the BSF programme it is a condition that falling pupil numbers are addressed and I did ask if he felt the council were dealing with Bradfield’s (forcasted) falling pupil numbers sufficiently by assuming people from out of catchment will continue to maintain it at a 900 pupil level. He was happy that the BSF conditions were being met. Again, we talked about lines being drawn somewhere on catchments and some will always be unhappy with this. At the end of the day, nothing guarantees entry to a specific school.

We did discuss why a 4th option wasn’t considered. This was suggested by Bradfield Parish Council and they stated that they would support this. (put WPV in Bradfield catchment so all the “Bradfield parish” area is under Bradfield.) Mr Harpham felt that people didn’t want this option so it wasn’t considered, he also felt people on WPV didn’t want this option. Again, I questioned this and said that people had not been given this choice but because it was a viable one it should have been considered. Mr Harpham said that as Marcliffe primary is the catchment for WPV the council felt it was unfare to split WPV children to then go to Bradfield for secondary school, he also said that the majority of WPV children go to Marcliffe. The would split friendships etc.

I personally would challenge this view. I would say that the majority of children within WPV do not go to Marcliffe. I also said that new intakes to secondary school encourage new friendships. All schools come together so felt it was wrong to use the view that people have to stick together. If for example, WPV had dual choice then people (ie parents and the child) can decide which school to apply for and use friendship patterns when making that choice.

Again we discussed that people were not asked to consider this option. I explained that the majority view on WPV would have wanted this option. The majority view within WPV is that it should be in Bradfield catchment. It appears to have been considered and discounting it without offering it to anyone. How do we know what other campaigning groups would have reacted to this if they were not even asked to respond on it. For example, Stannington/Wharncliffe Side/Bradfield/Dungworth’s campaigns was mainly based on pupils being displaced. Under the option to give Marcliffe and WPV dual catchment there was a possibility of 25-35 children being displaced. Noone within any of the effected areas were given figures based on this 4th option. There may well have been no displacement and this option would have been welcomed by the majority of WPV. (The displacement of children was only an issue for 1 year group in the projected figures, after this year they wasn’t any expected displacement of children even with the change in catchment area).

Mr Harpham is going to look further into who considered this originally and why this was discounted/not offered and get back to me on this. However, please note that as said before, the catchment has now been set in stone. When I discussed challenging things like this Mr Harpham acknowledged that people are entitled to do so but he feels that the decisions made are sound. People are entitled to persue these with others as they see fit.


As the merger is going ahead and children will have to attend Myers Grove then this will result in either being bussed or personally driven which just gives rise to an increase in the carbon footprints we leave. Despite previous comments - walking is not a feasible option for many children. In reality is would take 45 mins plus which is not acceptable, especially in winter etc.

Transport concerns. Increases in carbon footprints are one of the main issues. Wisewood was and is the most walked too school is Sheffield and strong indications show that it is very feasible for people to walk to Bradfield but not Myers.

Despite any promotions from the council people in Marcliffe/WPV would use cars to ship children to school - from my campaigning this is the majority feeling. No one has said that they would use public transport. This also will impact the bottlenecks etc in the Malin Bridge area. I would like to know the estimated impacts of this or if you considered this when making your decisions.

We talked about transport issues. Mr Harpham stated that people do currently make the trip from Wisewood to Myers and that approx 100 pupils currently opted for Myers and do make the journey. People are and do make personal choices. A traffic impact assessment will be done and this needs to be before planning applications etc so the timeline for this is approx Jan 08. Recommendations will come from this to show where improvements etc can be made.

Mr Harpahm acknowledged that Bradfield is closer to WPV but his personal view is that parents would also choose to drive children there and that they would not walk.

We also talked about transport to Myers. I was under the impression that the council had stated that no transport would be provided and that children will be able to get to school themselves. After speaking to Mr Harpham this isn’t definitely the case. The council will be looking at transport and talking to bus companies etc to see about having direct links from WPV, through Wisewood to Myers. The decision whether or not to subsidise busses for the new school would be taken by the Passenger Transport Executive. (The PTE s a Joint Authority with membership from all the four South Yorkshire Councils). It is not ruled out that there will be a bus/es available at school times going through the catchment area.

We did discuss the cost/implications of transporting pupils to Bradfield. Mr Harpham explained the 3 mile rule. He is going to get back to me with more details on this to clarify the criteria in full as I felt that a lot of the areas were within 3 miles of Bradfield school and transport provided. I also wanted clarity on what is considered a “safe” walking route as I explained people have suggested it may be to do with having to walk on rural roads etc.

I understand that the figures "show" that pupil numbers are falling in the Northwest of Sheffield. The northwest includes Bradfield school. What are their projected numbers as wouldn't it be a contradiction on everything labour are saying if the long term plans are to rebuild this school. IE/ you would be planning to rebuild a school where pupil numbers are dropping. What is being done to address pupil numbers at Bradfield on the medium to long term?

As stated before. Bradeld school will always be able to pull/fill places. They wouldnt rebuild and increase capacity at Bradfield. The line has to be drawn somewhere and they have done that by option 1 (status quo). Its acknowledged that whichever option is taken there will be people unhappy.

theres a good letter by darren webb in the sheffield telegraph this week! i cant seem to get a link to it can any1 help!! its about the merger and catchment areas etc

Full council requests a report, which officers prepare. The report is usually then considered by a Scrutiny Board, where officers are questioned in public. Scrutiny Board make a recommendation to Cabinet. Cabinet considers the recommendation of the Scrutiny Board and reaches its own decision. Cabinet make a recommendation to full council. Full council receives the recommendation of Cabinet, which may be open to amendment by any of the political parties. Amendments are debated in turn, and council comes to a final decision.

The importance of the Scrutiny Board process cannot be underestimated. It allows an open examination of the report, in public, where councillors can question the officers who wrote the report, and test their assumptions. After that, Cabinet gets to consider the report and any recommendations of the Scrutiny Board.

If this process didn't take place, then a report would go straight back to the full council meeting for debate - but without there having been any opportunity for a single councillor to question officers about their report in public.

The decision on what is scrutinised is ultimately determined by the Scrutiny Board Chair.


Thanks Red.

On a slightly different theme can you please clarify what happened in relation to the report to Cabinet 4th June in relation to the catchment consultation?

I know that the Executive Director’s (JCH) recommendation was to retain the status quo in relation to potential catchment changes by adopting Option 1 (retain the current pattern of catchment boundaries).

Was this report considered by a Scrutiny Board. Were officers questioned in public. Did a Scrutiny Board make a recommendation to Cabinet or was this just JCH? Did the full council receive the recommendation of a scrutiny board or just the recommendation of JCH? Were any amendments proposed/debated before a decision made?

Do you know what meetings were held in relation to this 4th June report? I have a feeling that this was sidestepped due to wider meetings/reports on the merger as a whole so I feel this was not fully considered and would like to be wrong on this. Did anyone question the report or were they too concerned with the later agenda item in the council meeting from the Lib-Dems to stop the merger? If you can let me know which meetings were held and when I can check out the minutes on the council website. (PS/ I was away when this all hit the fan so to speak).

PS/ I have put this on the catchment thread as it doesnt relate to the merger as such.

Re the last post, Red's got back to me and he will be providing responses in a couple of days. Will let you all know.

Can I directly ask anyone opposed to catchment changes........

One of the main reasons for sticking with option 1 (status quo) was due to the possibility of displacement. I see the reasoning behind this ...BUT...

Do you not feel slightly used. I feel that the merger of Wisewood/Myers has forced communities into battle and we appear to have lost some of the real issues. For example, Bradfield school needs a rebuild. I understand that this keeps getting delayed, other priorities elsewhere and all that.

I personally think it would have been better for all the communities to demand the council look at the whole North West area. Why didnt other areas ask the council why Bradfield wasnt getting a rebuild. The council could have built two new schools with 975 pupils each and this would have resolved the catchment arguements. Why wasnt this a solution? Why did we go into battle. I feel that we were led into this.

Re the last post, Red's got back to me and he will be providing responses in a couple of days. Will let you all know.

Can I directly ask anyone opposed to catchment changes........

One of the main reasons for sticking with option 1 (status quo) was due to the possibility of displacement. I see the reasoning behind this ...BUT...

Do you not feel slightly used. I feel that the merger of Wisewood/Myers has forced communities into battle and we appear to have lost some of the real issues. For example, Bradfield school needs a rebuild. I understand that this keeps getting delayed, other priorities elsewhere and all that.

I personally think it would have been better for all the communities to demand the council look at the whole North West area. Why didnt other areas ask the council why Bradfield wasnt getting a rebuild. The council could have built two new schools with 975 pupils each and this would have resolved the catchment arguements. Why wasnt this a solution? Why did we go into battle. I feel that we were led into this.


Basic tactics to win any battle divide and conquer:help:

Re the last post, Red's got back to me and he will be providing responses in a couple of days. Will let you all know.

Can I directly ask anyone opposed to catchment changes........

One of the main reasons for sticking with option 1 (status quo) was due to the possibility of displacement. I see the reasoning behind this ...BUT...

Do you not feel slightly used. I feel that the merger of Wisewood/Myers has forced communities into battle and we appear to have lost some of the real issues. For example, Bradfield school needs a rebuild. I understand that this keeps getting delayed, other priorities elsewhere and all that.

I personally think it would have been better for all the communities to demand the council look at the whole North West area. Why didnt other areas ask the council why Bradfield wasnt getting a rebuild. The council could have built two new schools with 975 pupils each and this would have resolved the catchment arguements. Why wasnt this a solution? Why did we go into battle. I feel that we were led into this.

I think the dissplacement issue was a smoke screen to get people on side. Bradfield has been up for a re-build since before the 1'st PFI money came through, IMO the council dont re-build schools that are performing well, just the 1's that are an embarresment to the LEA. Then they can say "they've" done something about it, got rid of the old under performing school & replaced it with a " must be better coz it's new" school:suspect:

The PFI schools I've visited wont last 20 yrs, never mind the 50 to 80 yrs some of the old schools have, & they usually have less space per pupil than the current buildings they replace!!
Short sightedness on both central & local government.

this is just all wrong why cant the sheffield labour party see it is !!! catchment areas, traffic around malin bridge, i could go on and on ! i think this all needs to be put back a few years and all redone all over again with the merger etc , theres lots of points we have all made on hear and still no answers from the labour/officers WHY?

masons. Totally agree with you.
We are not getting answers to the problems in north west.
Have you contacted Steve Ayris lately or have the Lib Dems been round with a leaflet explaining what they are going to do next?
I tell you something. If you really wanted to make a difference to the issues you are talking about why dont you stand for council.
You could be independent or be the SOCS candidate.
If not you, someone else from the forum.
I think you would have a chance in Hillsborough, seriously.

masons. Totally agree with you.
We are not getting answers to the problems in north west.
Have you contacted Steve Ayris lately or have the Lib Dems been round with a leaflet explaining what they are going to do next?
I tell you something. If you really wanted to make a difference to the issues you are talking about why dont you stand for council.
You could be independent or be the SOCS candidate.
If not you, someone else from the forum.
I think you would have a chance in Hillsborough, seriously.

Dont you think these problems are manufactured by the chief officers / cabinet?

Re the last post, Red's got back to me and he will be providing responses in a couple of days. Will let you all know.



Hi The Chavs -

I sent the information to your email address on Monday night.

Regards

Red

Hi The Chavs -

I sent the information to your email address on Monday night.

Regards

Red

Red, thanks for the information. Very helpful. I will be posting on here soon for everyone else.....Im just gathering more information etc.

I have been digging around as promised ;

Did you know that the main reason why WPV was not put into Bradfield catchment was that it would split the catchment for Marlcliffe Primary between two secondary schools which would make transfer to secondary more difficult to manage.

Its interesting this one - the following schools within Sheffield LEA feed into more than one secondary school :

Bankwood, Byron Wood, Dobcroft, Eccleshall, Emmaus, Hillsborough, Kucklow, Lydgate, Manor Lodge, Nether Green, Norton Free, Rainbow Forge, St Mary's, Valley Park, and finally Walkley.

How can this be a reason ??? It happens elsewhere in Sheffield but for WPV it would have been more difficult to manage. Can anyone explain the logic on this. It is the MAIN reason afterall !!!

Someone please explain:huh::huh:

I have been digging around as promised ;

Did you know that the main reason why WPV was not put into Bradfield catchment was that it would split the catchment for Marlcliffe Primary between two secondary schools which would make transfer to secondary more difficult to manage.

Its interesting this one - the following schools within Sheffield LEA feed into more than one secondary school :

Bankwood, Byron Wood, Dobcroft, Eccleshall, Emmaus, Hillsborough, Kucklow, Lydgate, Manor Lodge, Nether Green, Norton Free, Rainbow Forge, St Mary's, Valley Park, and finally Walkley.

How can this be a reason ??? It happens elsewhere in Sheffield but for WPV it would have been more difficult to manage. Can anyone explain the logic on this. It is the MAIN reason afterall !!!

Someone please explain:huh::huh:


I will explain, "THEY TELL LIE'S":hihi:
This may be the reason given but after dealing with these people and reading between the lines, for every truth there are multiple lies half truths and loads of misdirection.

The real reason is they didn't want to upset the more influential parents who's kids already go or are going to go to Bradfield.

One of the reasons the catchment areas were not changed is stated in the report as "parental choice can not be ignored"

It was ignored when Wisewood was discussed so from that I conclude that the parents who's kids go or are going to go to Bradield are considered better and more worthy of note than us common Wisewood people.

Red, thanks for the information. Very helpful. I will be posting on here soon for everyone else.....Im just gathering more information etc.

Before you post, please check my latest email to you (which is in regard to the Cabinet structure).

Red

I will explain, "THEY TELL LIE'S":hihi:
This may be the reason given but after dealing with these people and reading between the lines, for every truth there are multiple lies half truths and loads of misdirection.

The real reason is they didn't want to upset the more influential parents who's kids already go or are going to go to Bradfield.

One of the reasons the catchment areas were not changed is stated in the report as "parental choice can not be ignored"

It was ignored when Wisewood was discussed so from that I conclude that the parents who's kids go or are going to go to Bradield are considered better and more worthy of note than us common Wisewood people.

Couldnt agree more. If parental choice can not be ignored why have they ignored the residents of WPV who catagorically want to be in Bradfield catchment.

Harry Harpham told me that he believes that the majority of WPV children go to Marcliffe school. He also said they he believed that people on WPV did not want the option of Bradfield. :huh: He also said that they did not want to split Marcliffe to feed two secondary schools. This information was spread to all the councillors who voted to retain current catchments.

It is my belief that the majority of children on WPV do not attend Marcliffe school. I think this is incorrect information and I am currently asking for figures to show how many children currently in primary school on WPV and for a run down on which schools they go to - I think this will prove that the majority dont go to Marcliffe (if anyone already has this please pass on).

I also dont feel that it is wrong to say they dont want to split a feeder school when this is what the parents wanted and when it does happen elsewhere.

It is my very strong opinion that the councillors who voted were told what to vote without knowing the full picture. Councillors in other areas voted on an issue without knowing anything about it. Ignorance is not an excuse and I want this to be put on the table again.

I have been told that the door is shut on this but this is wrong. The merger issues has been on/off/on/still fighting so why not the catchment. If the councillors who voted have been told that the majority of WPV attend Marcliffe and they dont want to go to Bradfield then as far as they are concerned they have made the right decision. However, they were given incorrect information and ask to vote on something they didnt have a full picutre of.

If you have any contacts at local or government level or any tips for the campaign please feel free to PM me. Like the SOCS group, the battle goes on and on and on.

Couldnt agree more. If parental choice can not be ignored why have they ignored the residents of WPV who catagorically want to be in Bradfield catchment.

Harry Harpham told me that he believes that the majority of WPV children go to Marcliffe school. He also said they he believed that people on WPV did not want the option of Bradfield. :huh: He also said that they did not want to split Marcliffe to feed two secondary schools. This information was spread to all the councillors who voted to retain current catchments.

It is my belief that the majority of children on WPV do not attend Marcliffe school. I think this is incorrect information and I am currently asking for figures to show how many children currently in primary school on WPV and for a run down on which schools they go to - I think this will prove that the majority dont go to Marcliffe (if anyone already has this please pass on).

I also dont feel that it is wrong to say they dont want to split a feeder school when this is what the parents wanted and when it does happen elsewhere.

It is my very strong opinion that the councillors who voted were told what to vote without knowing the full picture. Councillors in other areas voted on an issue without knowing anything about it. Ignorance is not an excuse and I want this to be put on the table again.

I have been told that the door is shut on this but this is wrong. The merger issues has been on/off/on/still fighting so why not the catchment. If the councillors who voted have been told that the majority of WPV attend Marcliffe and they dont want to go to Bradfield then as far as they are concerned they have made the right decision. However, they were given incorrect information and ask to vote on something they didnt have a full picutre of.

If you have any contacts at local or government level or any tips for the campaign please feel free to PM me. Like the SOCS group, the battle goes on and on and on.

Hi Chavs, get a petition together from al WPV parents & hand it to JCH, H Harphen, & send a copy to Angela Smith, as always with SCC, he who shouts loudest:suspect::suspect:
Get a copy of what everybody realy wants to the star, if it's in the public domain, then the people in the ivory tower (Howden House),
cant ignor it.
PS, I'll get the date for the next Directors Briefing for you, then you can bring the subject up with JCH yourself:hihi: