Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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."

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!

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.

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!

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.

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!

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.

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 :)

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.

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 :)

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!

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?

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!

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.

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?

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.

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?)!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Absolute mugs. That's what they take you for.  
    • Trossachs definitely have one! 
    • A A day-school for girls and a boarding school for boys (even with, by the late '90s, a tiny cadre of girls) are very different places.  Though there are some similarities. I think all schools, for instance, have similar "rules", much as they all nail up notices about "potential" and "achievement" and keeping to the left on the stairs. The private schools go a little further, banging on about "serving the public", as they have since they were set up (either to supply the colonies with District Commissioners, Brigadiers and Missionaries, or the provinces with railway engineers), so they've got the language and rituals down nicely. Which, i suppose, is what visitors and day-pupils expect, and are expected, to see. A boarding school, outside the cloistered hours of lesson-times, once the day-pupils and teaching staff have been sent packing, the gates and chapel safely locked and the brochures put away, becomes a much less ambassadorial place. That's largely because they're filled with several hundred bored, tired, self-supervised adolescents condemned to spend the night together in the flickering, dripping bowels of its ancient buildings, most of which were designed only to impress from the outside, the comfort of their occupants being secondary to the glory of whatever piratical benefactor had, in a last-ditch attempt to sway the judgement of their god, chucked a little of their ill-gotten at the alleged improvement of the better class of urchin. Those adolescents may, to the curious eyes of the outer world, seem privileged but, in that moment, they cannot access any outer world (at least pre-1996 or thereabouts). Their whole existence, for months at a time, takes place in uniformity behind those gates where money, should they have any to hand, cannot purchase better food or warmer clothing. In that peculiar world, there is no difference between the seventh son of a murderous sheikh, the darling child of a ball-bearing magnate, the umpteenth Viscount Smethwick, or the offspring of some hapless Foreign Office drone who's got themselves posted to Minsk. They are egalitarian, in that sense, but that's as far as it goes. In any place where rank and priviilege mean nothing, other measures will evolve, which is why even the best-intentioned of committees will, from time to time, spawn its cliques and launch heated disputes over archaic matters that, in any other context, would have long been forgotten. The same is true of the boarding school which, over the dismal centuries, has developed a certain culture all its own, with a language indended to pass all understanding and attitiudes and practices to match. This is unsurprising as every new intake will, being young and disoriented, eagerly mimic their seniors, and so also learn those words and attitudes and practices which, miserably or otherwise, will more accurately reflect the weight of history than the Guardian's style-guide and, to contemporary eyes and ears, seem outlandish, beastly and deplorably wicked. Which, of course, it all is. But however much we might regret it, and urge headteachers to get up on Sundays and preach about how we should all be tolerant, not kill anyone unnecessarily, and take pity on the oiks, it won't make the blindest bit of difference. William Golding may, according to psychologists, have overstated his case but I doubt that many 20th Century boarders would agree with them. Instead, they might look to Shakespeare, who cheerfully exploits differences of sex and race and belief and ability to arm his bullies, murderers, fraudsters and tyrants and remains celebrated to this day,  Admittedly, this is mostly opinion, borne only of my own regrettable experience and, because I had that experience and heard those words (though, being naive and small-townish, i didn't understand them till much later) and saw and suffered a heap of brutishness*, that might make my opinion both unfair and biased.  If so, then I can only say it's the least that those institutions deserve. Sure, the schools themselves don't willingly foster that culture, which is wholly contrary to everything in the brochures, but there's not much they can do about it without posting staff permanently in corridors and dormitories and washrooms, which would, I'd suggest, create a whole other set of problems, not least financial. So, like any other business, they take care of the money and keep aloof from the rest. That, to my mind, is the problem. They've turned something into a business that really shouldn't be a business. Education is one thing, raising a child is another, and limited-liability corporations, however charitable, tend not to make the best parents. And so, in retrospect, I'm inclined not to blame the students either (though, for years after, I eagerly read the my Old School magazine, my heart doing a little dance at every black-edged announcement of a yachting tragedy, avalanche or coup). They get chucked into this swamp where they have to learn to fend for themselves and so many, naturally, will behave like predators in an attempt to fit in. Not all, certainly. Some will keep their heads down and hope not to be noticed while others, if they have a particular talent, might find that it protects them. But that leaves more than enough to keep the toxic culture alive, and it is no surprise at all that when they emerge they appear damaged to the outside world. For that's exactly what they are. They might, and sometimes do, improve once returned to the normal stream of life if given time and support, and that's good. But the damage lasts, all the same, and isn't a reason to vote for them. * Not, if it helps to disappoint any lawyers, at Dulwich, though there's nothing in the allegations that I didn't instantly recognise, 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...