Marple Community Forum & Noticeboard
July 28, 2014, 09:29:44 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Visit the Main Site

News: Banner Adverts on this site raise £1,000 for Skatepark Project
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  

Home Fires and Fuels - the greener way to heat your home

Pages: 1 [2] 3
  Print  
Author Topic: Moving to Marple ......... schools?  (Read 5143 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
simonesaffron
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 547


« Reply #15 on: May 03, 2012, 02:53:10 PM »

11yrs to 18yrs right the way through is almost, universally accepted as the best way to educate. I can never understand why all authorities (particularly Stockport) deviate from this.
Logged
hollins
Full Member
***
Posts: 147


« Reply #16 on: May 03, 2012, 03:39:54 PM »

I agree that 11-18 schools are better academically and socially:-
- it gives the lower-year children some older examples to look up to, and the 17 and 18 year olds some chance of prefect responsibility;
- it avoids the academic drop to "lowest common denominator" when children from several different schools come together to start A-levels;
- it gives the teachers the morale booster of being able to teach their specialist subject to the higher (A) level and to students who have made a choice to study those subjects;
- it allows the older children better opportunity for mentoring;
- it allows families with multiple children to have them in the same school, with the same term times, for much longer.

I also do not understand why Stockport chose otherwise. I suppose it was the "politically-correct" idea at the time. There again, so was the "Initial Teaching Alphabet" ...
Logged
Water Rat
Full Member
***
Posts: 144



« Reply #17 on: May 10, 2012, 10:36:20 PM »

"THe Hawk" is great with nursery kids at Rosehill!

Would send mine back anyday.
Logged
Deniseam
Full Member
***
Posts: 145


« Reply #18 on: May 11, 2012, 06:03:55 PM »

Who or what is The Hawk?
Logged
Lisa Oldham
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 575



« Reply #19 on: May 20, 2012, 10:14:58 AM »

As a parent at Ludworth I'd just like to  add my two penneth worth.  we are often over subscribed but generally speaking most of the kids on the list are from outside of the catchment area!  As far as I am concerned everyone in the catchment area gets in!!

The siblings rule was a long standing rule and why my last 2 children got in to Ludworth.  This rule of selection was second to catchment but has now been removed completely from Stockport schools.  I really do hope they have reinstated it as the 2nd rule.

It is impossible for parents, usually just the mum to be in 2 places at one time ,especially when the 2 schools will be a good distance away from each other.

I was refused a place at Rosehill many years ago for my eldest son when we arrived back in Marple because they were full. I could have appealed an got in, its 2 minutes from my house, however I wasnt that bothered and the head at Ludworth, though he was as full as Rosehill for that year, knew that he had a very rare lack of pupils for my daughters reception class the year after ( very low birth rate year apparently!) so squeezed my son in.

There would have been plenty of space, and a "right" to go, to Rosehill for my other 3 children but I wouldnt have been able to deliver all of them at the same time so the choice to send them to Ludworth was obvious AND it was right that I had that choice! Remember, Rosehill didnt want me, and refused my son outright!   

Ludworth I believe had 6 appeals last year as a result of siblings not getting in. None of them, like me, were in the catchment area.  They did get in after appeal because their arguments were correct.  The stress it caused those people was massive, it was horrible to see the upset and worry.  The truth is if they hadnt got their kids in then they would have had to remove their other children from Ludworth causing upheaval for them too.

I think the new Rosehill building is the ugliest thing Ive seen for a while and has sadly massively effected the value of my mums house which we are trying to sell and which backs on to the school.  However the traffic shouldnt be an issue as right from the word go it was in the plans to tackle it.  they have built a road on the grounds which runs at the back of my mums garden which is a "turning circle" and as i understand it will allow parents to drop their kids within the grounds rather than all over the estate?  As someone who often cant get off my estate in hte morning simply cos of irresponsible parking by people dropping at rosehill I welcome that at least!

Trouble is until its open we dont know what its going to be like and people should reserve judgment.  I cant imagine for one minute it will be "unsafe" and I am sure kids of all ages will get used to it very quickly.
Logged
Ali Bee
Newbie
*
Posts: 43


« Reply #20 on: May 27, 2012, 03:34:20 PM »

Yes the building at the Rose Hill, Elmfield Road/Boden Lane site is different than the old, inadequate and cash guzzling (but if the Council and Central Government had been prepared to fork out for each individual school which I wish they had), buildings that made up Peacefield, The Dale and the original Rose Hill Schools themselves it would not being built and, with the aspiration of having around 500 Primary School Pupils within it's building, only time will tell if this eventual long term money saving strategy works, as for how such a large enironment works in itself for the pupils is another matter as I myself think that they do better in smaller more familiar environment, but time may yet prove me wrong. 
Logged
Dave
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1943



« Reply #21 on: May 27, 2012, 04:00:25 PM »

I agree that 11-18 schools are better academically and socially....I also do not understand why Stockport chose otherwise. I suppose it was the "politically-correct" idea at the time.

It's true that 6th form colleges were flavour of the month some years ago, when local authorities decided whether to go for them or retain 11-18 schools.  But it was not really 'political correctness' - more a matter of simple economics.   Some Stockport secondary schools had very small sixth forms, and it became impractical and expensive to offer a full range of subjects at A level when there were only a few young people taking them.

A pity, because I entirely agree that 11-18 schools are preferable, for all the reasons that hollins suggests.   
Logged
Henry_
Full Member
***
Posts: 230



« Reply #22 on: June 26, 2012, 11:29:22 PM »

There is quite a lot of misinformation on this thread. I have close relatives with young kids at St. Marys and none of us are Catholics. We ourselves have 2, soon to be 3, kids at Ludworth and are outside the catchment area - Lisa's post on this is very accurate. When looking around for my eldest there were spare places at Mellor right up until the last minute. Do your own research and don't rely on well meaning but unreliable information on a message board.
Logged
the rover
Full Member
***
Posts: 200



« Reply #23 on: June 27, 2012, 09:13:22 AM »

I am always of the opinion that kids should go to the school nearest to where they live so that they can WALK to school and thus there will be less vehicles on the road doing the school runs. I read on this site so many different posts concerning saving the world by cycling and using trains or buses and therefore keeping less vehicles on the road that I think people who want to send their kids to schools where they have to be driven there are hypocrite's. Of course not every kid can go to their nearest school due to overfill but to actually decide to send them to another school is wrong.
Logged
Dave
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1943



« Reply #24 on: June 27, 2012, 09:40:52 AM »

Of course not every kid can go to their nearest school due to overfill but to actually decide to send them to another school is wrong.

...which would be fine if all schools were the same and all children were the same.  But thankfully they are not!  Some schools suit some children, other schools suit other children.  It's 'horses for courses!' 
Logged
JMC
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 334


« Reply #25 on: June 27, 2012, 11:18:06 AM »

I am always of the opinion that kids should go to the school nearest to where they live so that they can WALK to school and thus there will be less vehicles on the road doing the school runs. I read on this site so many different posts concerning saving the world by cycling and using trains or buses and therefore keeping less vehicles on the road that I think people who want to send their kids to schools where they have to be driven there are hypocrite's. Of course not every kid can go to their nearest school due to overfill but to actually decide to send them to another school is wrong.

I agree in principal (with exceptions such as Lisa's above) but with the increasing expectation of 'choice' (which didn't seem to apply so much years ago) people often want 'the best' schools for their children. I once heard a mum at toddler group say she wouldn't consider Rose Hill or All Saints as they were to near the council estates, unlike Ludworth. So in her case it was snobbery!

The Rose Hill turning circle is a good idea for older kids but who would drop off a reception/nursery child? Is someone going to collect them? There are many appeals going on at All Saints' and Rose Hill of people very nearby who didn't get places yet got offered Brookside and other much further away schools. Alot of people also are put off by Rose Hill's size (and traffic) and don't apply there. Again, it was carnage when the school had 300 pupils.
Logged
Dave
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1943



« Reply #26 on: June 27, 2012, 12:45:16 PM »

it was carnage when the school had 300 pupils.

Carnage? I hope not   Shocked  (Definition of carnage: the savage and excessive killing of many people; mass murder; butchery)
Logged
the rover
Full Member
***
Posts: 200



« Reply #27 on: June 27, 2012, 01:06:55 PM »

it was carnage when the school had 300 pupils.

Carnage? I hope not   Shocked  (Definition of carnage: the savage and excessive killing of many people; mass murder; butchery)

Have you been to Rose Hill recently? I have noticed that the 'Stocks' have been moved from the park and installed at Rose Hill School!
Logged
JMC
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 334


« Reply #28 on: June 27, 2012, 02:46:47 PM »

It was just a phrase!  Would you think if someone said 'kill two birds with one stone' they meant literally?!

Logged
Dave
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1943



« Reply #29 on: June 27, 2012, 05:18:33 PM »

Killing two birds with one stone is a well-known metaphor, but carnage isn't - what does it mean?
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Tweets by @marplewebsite
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!