Petition to Save Fairlawn Nursery

[yas]

Thread removed upon request _ Admin

[LondonMix]

For the sake of balance below is what Fairlawn actually says about the matter. Fairlawn (not Lewisham) are closing down the nursery as falling enrollment combined with high running costs means they don't want to continue to subsidize it from the main school budget as its not financially sustainable...

http://www.fairlawn.lewisham.sch.uk/nursery/

"It is with great sadness that the Governing Body (of Fairlawn) has to share with you their intent to close Fairlawn?s nursery at the end of this academic year (August 2016).

At Fairlawn we are absolutely committed to early education; the decision was made because it is no longer financially viable to keep the nursery open. We have made many changes over the last few years in order to try to keep costs down whilst ensuring the children still have access to the same exceptional learning experiences. However, due to falling numbers and the high running costs of the separate building and site, the nursery is currently being heavily subsidised from the main school budget. With a reducing school budget due to borough-wide cuts, the financial position is no longer sustainable."

[yas]

Yes, Fairlawn School unfortunately has no choice but to close down the nursery. This nursery has served community very well over the years and deserves to be saved!

[LondonMix]

It is under-subscribed and is losing money, undermining the finances of the main school. Who exactly is supposed to save it given people aren't enrolling in sufficient numbers?

yas Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yes, Fairlawn School unfortunately has no choice

> but to close down the nursery. This nursery has

> served community very well over the years and

> deserves to be saved!

[HopOne]

More background here:

http://www.se23.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=12324

[Vik]

Is this the Annexe on Waldenshaw Road? If so it's been there a lot longer than 23 years, I left there around 35 years ago! Such a shame that the school can't keep it going any more, though that being the case, the decision is unavoidable, it would be nice to see the site continue to be used as a nursery.

[yas]

Yes, it is taking money from the school. The school has done anything in their power to make it viable. However, Lewisham Council has a duty to show its commitment to early years education.

In that area, Horniman School does not have a nursery, Holy Trinity School doesn't have a nursery, neither does St Barts. Fairlawn Nursery fed to all these three schools last year alone. Not to mention, Adamsrill, Kilmore and many more. So once again I will stress that Lewisham Council has a duty to show its commitment to early years education!

[El Presidente]

seems like a sensible decision to close it

[dbboy]

Has anyone considered approaching the management teams at Horniman, Holy Trinity, St Barts and Kilmorie Primary Schools and Lewisham Council to see if they are interested in forming a partnership to take over the running of the nursery? Perhaps this could provide a way forward if their budgets would allow this to happen.

[LondonMix]

Yeah but people aren't using it because the hours aren't convenient. There is no point keeping something open that is under utilized. That's a waste of money and schools have limited resources. I agree Fairlawn's governing board totally appear to have made the right decision after trying to salvage the situation for years based on their statements.

The council don't have anything to do with it. Nursery places (private and state) are funded at the same rate by government and Fairlawn has been getting its normal per pupil funding as its guaranteed. The point is, this nursery costs more to operate that the revenue it generated in part because its under-subscribed. Not closing would have meant, the main primary school to reducing its own funding to subsidize it heavily. That would be madness.

yas Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yes, it is taking money from the school. The

> school has done anything in their power to make it

> viable. However, Lewisham Council has a duty to

> show its commitment to early years education.

>

> In that area, Horniman School does not have a

> nursery, Holy Trinity School doesn't have a

> nursery, neither does St Barts. Fairlawn Nursery

> fed to all these three schools last year alone.

> Not to mention, Adamsrill, Kilmore and many more.

> So once again I will stress that Lewisham Council

> has a duty to show its commitment to early years

> education!

[Vik]

Sounds like the perfect plan dbboy. That said, if it is so vital to all of these schools, why is it still under subscribed?

I can absolutely see why you are upset Yas, but I think Fairlawn are making the most sensible decision here.

dbboy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Has anyone considered approaching the management

> teams at Horniman, Holy Trinity, St Barts and

> Kilmorie Primary Schools and Lewisham Council to

> see if they are interested in forming a

> partnership to take over the running of the

> nursery? Perhaps this could provide a way forward

> if their budgets would allow this to happen.

[yas]

I also agree with Fairlawn's decision. I have a son there and another daughter who is due to start next year. I still maintain that Lewisham Council has a commitment to early year's education. If they recognise that this is a community nursery and have different needs to other nurseries such as factoring in the cost of maintaining a different site and they can also see why it needs to be funded differently to other nurseries! It would be a terrible shame if nothing can be done about this nursery as it is serving so many different schools. Not just Fairlawn and it is managed really really well by the excellent Fairlawn School staff!

This is why we need your help! So please sign our petition :)

[dbboy]

Vik, I'm just putting forward a suggestion for those on here who would like it retained, if they wish to achieve their aim then I suggest they arrange a meeting with the schools and get talking.

From a commercial perspective, if a venture is is costing more to run than it is generating, the only logical action to take is to close it down.

[LondonMix]

Sorry but that doesn't make sense. Parents are actively choosing other options in the community otherwise the school wouldn't have enrollment issues that were causing it to lose money. Tax payer money is precious. Using it to fund a under subscribed service is incredibly wasteful.

Based on the SE23 thread it seems like the short operational hours are why parents are choosing nurseries that provide full wrap around care. Redirecting pupils to those providers in the community is the best use of tax payer money.

yas Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I also agree with Fairlawn's decision. I have a

> son there and another daughter who is due to start

> next year. I still maintain that Lewisham Council

> has a commitment to early year's education. If

> they recognise that this is a community nursery

> and have different needs to other nurseries such

> as factoring in the cost of maintaining a

> different site and they can also see why it needs

> to be funded differently to other nurseries! It

> would be a terrible shame if nothing can be done

> about this nursery as it is serving so many

> different schools. Not just Fairlawn and it is

> managed really really well by the excellent

> Fairlawn School staff!

>

> This is why we need your help! So please sign our

> petition :)

[yas]

LondonMix it is clear that I won't be getting your signature anytime soon. When my son went there last year there were 60 kids. Then the school had to get rid one full day (another cost cutting exercise). The nursery had its ofsted last year (Outstanding).

They have since continued providing excellent early years education. My daughter was due to start in September along with others but we have now made alternative arrangements!

[LondonMix]

I can only go by what the school says regarding enrollment and why they've chosen to close.

When you have fixed overheads, reducing hours by cutting a day isn't usually a cost cutting measure unless you are already under subscribed. In that case, by forcing pupils to use the same amount of nursery hour provisions over few days can reduce staff costs.

I get that you love the school and I am sure it was an outstanding provision-- the lack of enrollment appears to be due to inconvenient hours for working parents. However, your statement saying Lewisham is closing it is very misleading and your solution-- essentially subsidizing a program for which there is falling demand-- isn't compelling to me.

What services would you have Lewisham cut so that Fairlawn nursery can get more money than its entitled to and more than other state and private nurseries receive to stay open? Really, you can't just demand money and expect there to be no trade off. What would you sacrifice, or does your petition demand an equal increase in tax to fund your demands? I'm assuming you are willing to pay these taxes yourself to ensure the provision remains in place given how passionately you believe in this?

[yas]

It was a cost cutting exercise (lunch time supervision). It is Lewisham Council which funds the schools for early years education not the school so they need to consider funding it differently. As for the falling numbers, they had 60 kids last year a lot of whom had working parents so that childminders dropped and picked up the kids.

What better use of taxpayers money then early years education! Private nurseries are not oblidged to provide a teacher whereas school nurseries do!

[LondonMix]

Fairlawn's decision to close doesn't reduce funding of early years education. All those children will still be funded just in other institutions. Fairlawn themselves have suggested there are places at Haseltine which is also a state nursery.

Lewisham funds all nursery places per pupil. Why should Fairlawn get more funding than other places able to provide the service without losing money particularly when alternatives exist that are a better use of tax payer money?

What would you cut or would you pay more taxes and is this part of the petition?

Also, Fairlawn themselves stated falling enrollment is one of the principal reasons the board of governors of the school is closing so while you may try to insist otherwise, I think most people will believe what the school officially reports over any other assertions to the contrary.

[yas]

LondonMix as I said I won't be getting your vote any time soon :)

As for the rest of you, please support our petition! We need your signatures! Thank you

[LondonMix]

You might get my vote if you can answer my questions. If there is a compelling point that I'm missing I'm open to changing my view.

[tomskip]

It's interesting (and of course sad at the same time) that the Nursery has to close. I thought we were in the middle of a baby boom - or was that in the mid 2000s and is the birth rate falling again now? Will we have under utilised primary schools and secondary schools in the near future?

[yas]

Indeed it is sad news! Potentially 60 families will be affected by this decision year in year out. The staff are going to be affected. Some members of staff have been there for years! Those of us who had kids on the list had to make other arrangements.

Lewisham Council has to do something about this. Other schools in the area had budget cuts as well so they won't be able contribute with the running of the nursery.

[yas]

Sorry guys, it is me again! Can we please have some more signatures? Pretty please :)

[dbboy]

146 and counting

[yas]

161 and counting! and some one from the forest hill society is collecting manual signatures for it. Plus SLP is covering it too. So it is encouraging for both the community and the school to know that ppl care about their community nursery! Not everyone shares your view LondonMix and (dbboy?)!