Great expectation at town's first free school (From Warrington Guardian)

why do they keep using the term 'super head'? surley this should be applied if the head actually pulls it off and the kids achieve....until then why not just stick head?!?!?

38 children when 120 were predicted!!! Am I alone in thinking this school is CLEARLY not needed. How can 38 children justify the need for full time teachers/principal/s
uperhead etc... and the destruction of much loved playing fields to build a multimillion pound school! I genuinely feel that my taxes would be better spent elsewhere during these austere times.

You're not alone. The scandal is that they get a grant to make up the difference between the numbers they said they'd get and the numbers they've got - so each pupil is costing three times what other Warrington high school gets for each pupil. And the government would find money for this unneeded building project when they couldn't find it for the Council's schools.

120 is NOT the number the school said it would get but the number allowed, just like when the old Woolston HS had its prospective intake numbers reduced to 180 by Warrington Bo Co and oh and then they said numbers were falling for Woolston HS ! Someone needed to get their facts straight here.
The school has made an extremely good start in the face of some very underhanded tactics from a council which certainly is no friend to the Woolston area.
Householders and parents in the Woolston area wished to keep a secondary school and now they have an excellent replacement for the old Woolston HS.
Remember the Hillock Lane site was supposed to be used for the new build Woolston HS was owed in the 1990s when we were still in Cheshire - and top of Cheshire's new build list. Anyone else remember that 70+% of the people here voted to remain in Cheshire for council purposes but who were ignored and we got..... Warrington Council in charge - covering themselves in "glory" this week I see with in-fighting and jobs for the boys?

As for Hillock Lane - the "much- loved playing fields? I know for a fact that the main use for these fields was for dog walking - despite the fact that on paper at least schoolchildren might have had on occasion to use them as playing fields! I on numerous occasions had tried to remind dog walkers that dogs should not have been loose on there! It wasn't the old school's fault that lesson times often denied the chance for activity to be held on those fields during the school day. However the occasional local football team playing there at weekends got fantastically warm changing rooms to keep their legs warm as the changing rooms there must have cost a fortune to be kept at that heat year round !
The arguments of certain people on this council about the loss of amenity to the community if a new school is built on there is a nonsense. The Woolston community will GAIN a facility with state of the art recreational facilities replacing the weed strewn area there now. There will be well maintained pitches, all weather playing surfaces and multi games/sport areas to share! With the area involved you could fit 2 or even 3 new build schools there and have area left over. Don't forget with the closure of WHS the local primaries also lost the chance of using the facilities of their local secondary school. yet another way in which the Woolston community lost out. Let us not forget also that there is also the whole of Woolston park and linear park in addition which will still be there for Woolston residents.
Finally I question the Labour councillors arguing that this much needed secondary school in Woolston affects the funding/development for special education in the town. I would ask why a non purpose building ie the old Woolston High School condemned by the same council as having unfit buildings should suddenly be A OK for special needs children or don't they deserve the specially designed facilities they have now at Green Lane and Foxley? I have visited Green Lane and found it to be a wonderful school led by dedicated and hard working staff in a wonderfully supportive environment. I bet they are delighted to be shoved into the old redundant and "unsuitable " WHS buildings. Oh but...wait Warrington council is going to leave those buildings empty for a while and then spend a couple of millions £££s ! That's just fine then. makes sense does it? Oh and yes... move Grappenhall Hall Boys' school into those same WHS buildings - for pupils with behavioural and special circumstance difficulties. Let's face it the release of that oh so desirable land in Grappenhall for building would be just great and after all those needy children won't mind being relocated to Woolston redundant buildings. Is this a "plan" I wonder?

Rex Mundi = C-Froggatt

Chunkymunky = L-Ladbury

Are these the pusodnyns you really want to vote for???

Padgate and Poulton lemons… Get a room, you disgust me.

so wonderful to pay all them taxes for a such as waste of money when there is enough schools to take these children. Austerity.......no, a needless waste

I will resist making a personal comment about the woeful lack of grammar here. "paying all those taxes" is supposed to provide a fair and equal education for all with parental choice. The parental choice of all the community of Woolston was removed from them and the facilities owed and promised to the people of Woolston were denied them - no hint of democracy there. This new school redresses that balance.
Culcheth got the new build money that should have been for Woolston HS. Money galore has been spent on Lymm. - in Shelia Woodyatt's electoral area (as Grappenhall Hall school is probably removed from that area of the town too and relocated to Woolston) Has anyone in Woolston examined the facilities that Lymm High School has whilst this council denied Woolston a school?
Toffeeman - this is about fairness. Woolston HS was a good school and served its community well. Now there is a school which shows all the signs of doing that and more. This school will attract pupils from various areas of Woolston just as the old school did before this council reduced its numbers. A thriving school in the area will bring many benefits. I suggest you attend the forthcoming open day to make a more balanced judgement.

Colin Lilypad wrote:
Rex Mundi = C-Froggatt Chunkymunky = L-Ladbury Are these the pusodnyns you really want to vote for??? Padgate and Poulton lemons… Get a room, you disgust me.

Ha ha ha absolutly hilarious!!

Colin Lilypad = No friggin sherlock!!

Its been well established for a long time on these boards firstly im a man (maybe check back at the long rant about LGBT inclusion etc) and secondly that hairstyle of hers would never go well with my half blonde eye brows!!

Youll also see from the many posts i clearly live in a part of orford too!!

Ha ha ha colin back to the crossword love becuase your investigative skills are as useful as a chocolate tampon flower!!

Can one report posts for being puerile, crude,off the point and purely boring "chunkymonkey"?
If you live in Orford why then argue against the new school in Woolston? William Beamont school has been a pet project for this council for donkey's years. The council that is now weeping and wailing over missing its Beamont rebuild they were getting rid of Woolston for. So you get a school on your doorstep but the people of Woolston are denied it? How fair!
The school that should have been dropped...if indeed one needed to at all with projected higher secondary school numbers just around the corner, was Padgate, Lysander - whatever name it is using this week. That was the school where numbers were falling. The school where the numbers have not significantly increased because it was not an attractive nor alternative option for people in the Woolston area. The children in Woolston had to go to Birchwood, Boteler, or even Culcheth. I find it ridiculous that a pupil living in the Woolston area should travel all the way out to Culcheth, but I know they have gone there after the closure of Woolston was set in place.
As I said people should take the opportunity to visit the new school on Saturday 29th and see what is being done for the Woolston area pupils who have started there.

REMfan wrote:
Can one report posts for being puerile, crude,off the point and purely boring "chunkymonkey"? If you live in Orford why then argue against the new school in Woolston? William Beamont school has been a pet project for this council for donkey's years. The council that is now weeping and wailing over missing its Beamont rebuild they were getting rid of Woolston for. So you get a school on your doorstep but the people of Woolston are denied it? How fair! The school that should have been dropped...if indeed one needed to at all with projected higher secondary school numbers just around the corner, was Padgate, Lysander - whatever name it is using this week. That was the school where numbers were falling. The school where the numbers have not significantly increased because it was not an attractive nor alternative option for people in the Woolston area. The children in Woolston had to go to Birchwood, Boteler, or even Culcheth. I find it ridiculous that a pupil living in the Woolston area should travel all the way out to Culcheth, but I know they have gone there after the closure of Woolston was set in place. As I said people should take the opportunity to visit the new school on Saturday 29th and see what is being done for the Woolston area pupils who have started there.

where have i said im against the new school.....please do point it out?!?!?

My original point was about the use of the word 'super head', a ridiculous term to use before any achievements have been made....unless of course you count the glowing ofstead report where they got 'outstanding'....ohh no thats right that wasnt real and they had to apologise for incorrect use?!?!

As far as I understand it Woolston's new "superhead" a politcal term as I understand it, Sir Ian Hall, made an amazing success of the very difficult job of forging a new school/academy in Oldham - not an easy task considering its history. Of course building a new school in Woolston will be a dream compared to that, with the willing and eager new Woolston pupils they have and supportive parents. We all know how good Woolston parents can be, illustrated by their fight against an already mind made up council determined to forge their wishes onto a community.
Lord Andrew Adonis - one of the few Labour politicians who had the right ideas re education valued Sir Iain - that makes him a "superhead" in my book.

I'm going to coin the phrase 'super brown nose'!!!

Like anything.....the profs is in the pudding! Maybe then we can see who shall wear the 'super' badge!!!

Colin Lilypad wrote:
Rex Mundi = C-Froggatt

Chunkymunky = L-Ladbury

Are these the pusodnyns you really want to vote for???

Padgate and Poulton lemons… Get a room, you disgust me.

Oh well, getting two out of two wrong at least means you're consistent!

REMfan wrote:
120 is NOT the number the school said it would get but the number allowed, just like when the old Woolston HS had its prospective intake numbers reduced to 180 by Warrington Bo Co and oh and then they said numbers were falling for Woolston HS ! Someone needed to get their facts straight here.
The school has made an extremely good start in the face of some very underhanded tactics from a council which certainly is no friend to the Woolston area.
Householders and parents in the Woolston area wished to keep a secondary school and now they have an excellent replacement for the old Woolston HS.
Remember the Hillock Lane site was supposed to be used for the new build Woolston HS was owed in the 1990s when we were still in Cheshire - and top of Cheshire's new build list. Anyone else remember that 70+% of the people here voted to remain in Cheshire for council purposes but who were ignored and we got..... Warrington Council in charge - covering themselves in "glory" this week I see with in-fighting and jobs for the boys?

As for Hillock Lane - the "much- loved playing fields? I know for a fact that the main use for these fields was for dog walking - despite the fact that on paper at least schoolchildren might have had on occasion to use them as playing fields! I on numerous occasions had tried to remind dog walkers that dogs should not have been loose on there! It wasn't the old school's fault that lesson times often denied the chance for activity to be held on those fields during the school day. However the occasional local football team playing there at weekends got fantastically warm changing rooms to keep their legs warm as the changing rooms there must have cost a fortune to be kept at that heat year round !
The arguments of certain people on this council about the loss of amenity to the community if a new school is built on there is a nonsense. The Woolston community will GAIN a facility with state of the art recreational facilities replacing the weed strewn area there now. There will be well maintained pitches, all weather playing surfaces and multi games/sport areas to share! With the area involved you could fit 2 or even 3 new build schools there and have area left over. Don't forget with the closure of WHS the local primaries also lost the chance of using the facilities of their local secondary school. yet another way in which the Woolston community lost out. Let us not forget also that there is also the whole of Woolston park and linear park in addition which will still be there for Woolston residents.
Finally I question the Labour councillors arguing that this much needed secondary school in Woolston affects the funding/development for special education in the town. I would ask why a non purpose building ie the old Woolston High School condemned by the same council as having unfit buildings should suddenly be A OK for special needs children or don't they deserve the specially designed facilities they have now at Green Lane and Foxley? I have visited Green Lane and found it to be a wonderful school led by dedicated and hard working staff in a wonderfully supportive environment. I bet they are delighted to be shoved into the old redundant and "unsuitable " WHS buildings. Oh but...wait Warrington council is going to leave those buildings empty for a while and then spend a couple of millions £££s ! That's just fine then. makes sense does it? Oh and yes... move Grappenhall Hall Boys' school into those same WHS buildings - for pupils with behavioural and special circumstance difficulties. Let's face it the release of that oh so desirable land in Grappenhall for building would be just great and after all those needy children won't mind being relocated to Woolston redundant buildings. Is this a "plan" I wonder?

"REMfan wrote:
120 is NOT the number the school said it would get but the number allowed, just like when the old Woolston HS had its prospective intake numbers reduced to 180 by Warrington Bo Co and oh and then they said numbers were falling for Woolston HS ! Someone needed to get their facts straight here."

Give me the facts then. What's the school's budget for this academic year? £500,000? £750,000? £15k per pupil? £20k? The problem is, it's a state secret - because it's "free" from having to divulge what numbers it told the DfE it would get.

If a Woolston school can get blood out of the stone that is this government...... bloody good luck to them I say!
I would repeat that the householders/ residents of Woolston are owed the investment that this school brings to the area. The old Woolston High School was starved of cash as other schools received new buildings, astroturf pitches etc etc. That school was in effect run down from the 1990s and then the people were told the buildings weren't up to standard!
I would add that your figures are no doubt wildly exaggerated. This is a new school beginning its life by utilising underused buildings. The good news is that in hopefully 2 years time there will be a new purpose built school at the Hillock lane site which will enhance the facilities and opportunities for the Woolston/Padgate and beyond communities. Instead of the drain of pupils travelling to Culcheth, Birchwood etc local children will be able to walk to school - something we should all be encouraging.

I understand the sense of loss from closing Woolston High. But Burtonwood doesn't have its own high school, there's no high school in Bewsey and Dallam. Why? Because a high school needs a minimum of 600 pupils to offer a full curriculum, and no single area can sustain those numbers. It was almost unrealistic to talk about an intake of 120 pupils - not when they are only around 300 high school age pupils in Woolston. If the DfE believed that nonsense, that's either the DfE being stupid, or it's a political/ideologica
l decision in the face of common sense.

The teaching staff budget alone at KLAW must be well over £300,000. A budget of £500,000 - for 38 pupils - is not a wild exaggeration, but if the school or the government is willing to divulge the real cost, let's have it.

To argue about Burtonwood not having its own school is a little off the point as it is a rural area where the children have traditionally taken transport to the various secondary schools of choice. Before WBC interference children from Hollins Green, Rixton even Irlam and outlying areas used to travel to Woolston quite happily. I see no reason why they in future would not choose to attend a school of excellence in Woolston. When I lived in Padgate parents chose Woolston HS even after the as it seems now unnecessary Padgate HS was built.
Until interference from WBC Woolston HS had year groups of around 200 - 220 pupils with Padgate HS operating. It is a fact that the primary school population has grown and that there will be a need for secondary school places.
This new school in Woolston will grow year by year - especially now that it is open and there really isn't any point in certain councillors trying to prevent its existence. It exists; there is a demand for the school and the kind of education it is going to provide. It will grow most decidedly year by year.

As for the finances - of course there are costs in starting up a new school but those costs will benefit countless children in years to come. At least for a free school/academy it is employing highly qualified and competent staff. How many other schools in the town are offering Latin to their students?
I totally refute the argument about you need schools larger than 600 to offer a wide curriculum. You are speaking to a parent who chose to send their children to what was the town's smallest school which then later was forced to become the largest at the time with the amalgamation of 2 schools! So much for "parental choice" and as for the curriculum - the curriculum my children were offered was narrower than I wanted. They received no further choice than they were receiving before the amalgamation and in fact the quality of their education suffered.

Afternoon all. First of all I think it's important to add that we would've had more than 38 children in our first year if the council hadn't tried relentless to boycot our plans to finalise a site? It is clear from personally speaking to parents in the community, they WOULD have sent their kids to this school if a site had been confirmed earlier...Those are the facts ladies and gentlemen.

Secondly we already have 100+ children ready to start in September 2013 and this list is growing by the day. We have a limit of 120, and I do believe we will achieve this.

In regards to the Hillock Lane, I believe our purpose built school will occupy just one out of ten acres of the playing fields site so will have no real impact on the use by the local community. In addition, I can add that it is our intention to make our state of the art facilities available to the surrounding community for their use also - so surely this will only benefit the local community!

Thank you.

JonnyScotland wrote:
Afternoon all. First of all I think it's important to add that we would've had more than 38 children in our first year if the council hadn't tried relentless to boycot our plans to finalise a site? It is clear from personally speaking to parents in the community, they WOULD have sent their kids to this school if a site had been confirmed earlier...Those are the facts ladies and gentlemen.

Secondly we already have 100+ children ready to start in September 2013 and this list is growing by the day. We have a limit of 120, and I do believe we will achieve this.

In regards to the Hillock Lane, I believe our purpose built school will occupy just one out of ten acres of the playing fields site so will have no real impact on the use by the local community. In addition, I can add that it is our intention to make our state of the art facilities available to the surrounding community for their use also - so surely this will only benefit the local community!

Thank you.

How very patronising!! Ladies and gentlemen!! I attended every meeting held about this school and remember distinctly being informed that numbers of around 70 to 90 were expected within the first year. So where have all those children disappeared to?? Also, the site was confirmed in July, well before the September intake so again why did parents within the local community not support the school as previously assured. Lots of questions which need answering with clarity and 100% honesty, not patronising half truths! I guess the ipad bribery didn't work as well as you wanted it to, I am ready to boycott (correct spelling) this school! I want my child to be able to spell!! :-)

Those missing children the previous poster mentioned are just yet more Woolston children poached to prop up and support other Warrington schools. A great deal of misinformation about this school was voiced by not only these councillors but by people in education in this town. Parents were being told that this school would not open! There was a constant campaign against the school which is still continuing. This has not been a fair contest and it is about time it was stopped. The school will continue providing an excellent learning and nurturing environment for learning for its pupils. These pupil numbers will grow of that I have no doubt.