PROTECT TUNSTALL COMMUNITY

Sir

I think that you are missing the point, which is, IF YOU DONT GO TO CHURCH, and I await proof or fact, that a child from whichever parish boundary is used, that there is one child at Tunstall Church of England Voluntary Aided School, whose parents do not go to church regularly

It is a well known fact that many "parents" only go to "church" to get their child into a church school, indeed, Tunstall Mums Facebook page mentioned to a 'prospective" mum, it didn't matter. I have heard that some parents only turn up to "the local church" at Easter, Harvest Festival or Nativity!!!! Can you really tell me that these parents consider themselves REGULAR CHURCH GOERS!!! Once a month, for a year, i!! I doubt if those residents, who do not support this relocation or expansion, who do go to church every week, think this. It's purely a means to an end for parents.

Not that I expect a reply, but one assumes, you live in the "parish" and probably have children at the school. So which of the above categories do you fall into, regular (weekly) or regular ( when I have too).

Write a comment...Can someone tell me why on earth should the children of staff members be on the Admissions Policy? As we are being told that village schools no longer exist, then the out dated thinking that Heads and their staff are members of the local community is also obsolete. Looked after children are, quite rightly, on the top of the list, but who does makes up and prioritises the remainder and can it be a list that changes with the wind?

Quite simply because if you have a staff member with a child at another school, that teacher would not be able to perform their duties to their employer due to being on a school run. Surely that is a common sense issue?

#328: enlightened -

Commen Sense

 

what the hell do the rest of us do!! Teachers are no different to anyone else except they have NO IDEA OF LIFE!!

#326: - 325

Happy to answer your question. Yes, live in the parish. Yes, one child at the school currently. We applied with Tunstall as our 1st choice and under the criteria 4 of living in the parish as we are not regular churchgoers. Not regular does not mean that we are not supportive of the Church of England, and that was one of the key influences to put Tunstall as our 1st choice. It appears therefore that we would not fit into either category you offered up. I hope this helps.

It is totally inappropriate for teachers to teach their offspring. It can be open to abuse or perceived abuse. Do the teachers and their children attend C of E churches on a regular basis or are they allowed to be Atheists? To mention 'common sense' is rather strange as that commodity is totally lacking, as people live in one area and drive to another to educate their children!

#329: - Re:

That is just plain offensive to the teaching profession and you should apologise. I thought this level of conversation had risen above petty name calling.

#331: - re 328

I disagree, you appear to have a beef about everything and I don't even know who you are! Teachers teaching their children is a fact of life, it is just common sense that if a teacher were to have a child of the age they teach that going to the same place means a more streamlined and logical solution.

And people are willing to drive to the better schools, yes, this is the case but not strange at all. It happens across all facets of life not just schooling. If we prefer a shop that is on the opposite side of town we go there regardless of the choices in between. If we prefer a holiday destination, we bypass the others and go where we prefer. Choice and mobility is one of the great freedoms we "modern folk" use and abuse.

Write a comment...#329

The main debate for most people is about planning/location but you feel the need to criticise teachers in a grand sweeping statement. How does this help?

I respectfully suggest that it would be better on the subject of Teachers to draw a line under this, as which ever way people think, I really don't think that the profession deserves some of these comments

The point of admission criteria is a general one, highlighting the issue of 'church' or 'non church' attendance rather than any particular group.

Tunstall School was originally for the education of local children, yet by the nature of being under the umbrella of Canterbury Diocese, it's catchment area is considerably wider than it was ever designed to be. No one wants the school to close, I'm sure.

The issue I think is the expansion & relocation, particularly to the proposed site. The suggestion that KCC had always intended to move the school to this site, is not correct. If you take the opportunity of looking through the planning documents, for the Design Panel Report, clearly shows that KCC purchased this site for an Agricultural College, NOT a Church of England School,

I have been trying to find out date of meeting a village hall with planning committee on web when I have come across swale borough council planning notes which state in the recommendation the council believe the overwhelming advantages of the proposal outweigh any possible objections and are recommending that the Borough Council raise no objection to the application!!!!! So basically decision has been made before meetings at village hall and swale house.

#336: - Swale Borough Council Planning Committee-Decision already made!

No, thats one persons recommendation, this is process and has to be done for every application submitted not only for this build but any that take place. SBC have to vote on it yet and so does the KCC planning committee.

On the 9th at the village hall both sides views for planning will be heard in an open forum and on the 10th SBC will hear views but these are "booked views" from both parties for and against and KCC and The Tunstall Parish council, this will not be open for the public to speak. So on the 9th everyone whatever side you are on must make your thoughts known. However they will not answer any questions they are only there to listen

Hope that helps!

#337: - Re: Swale Borough Council Planning Committee-Decision already made! 

 Thank you, helped calm me down.

#338: - Re: Re: Swale Borough Council Planning Committee-Decision already made!

Yes very difficult at the moment

 

 

I have been visiting friends and colleagues WHO LIVE IN Tunstall AND HAVE DRIVEN THROUGH THE VILLAGE, I can only make a comment on the effort of the locals to stop this silly idea of building a school of this size in a very rural location and especially in a pretty village. It is apparent that people are against the development due to the posters etc.Good Luck to people in Tunstall especially to those that it will dramatically effect.

#340: visitor - TUNSTALL

thanks for your support NO TO THE KCC BUILD!!

#10: The future is bright the future is Tunstall - Observations

How silly and naive you sound. If your argument against those who oppose the school is that tunstall road is a rat run for commuters, how can you possibly think that that will be improved by putting a new school at the proposed site?

#16: - 21st Century Education

It might well be that an improvement to the existing school is needed.  A new school is not seen to be needed nor is it wanted by those who live in and around Tunstall. FACT.  Your wanting a new school is only about your opinion.

#26: Choose a nickname - against this petition

How blinkered young mums and dads can be when it comes to their little darlings, it robs them of all perspective or overview of how life really is. Be careful what you wish for, for one certain thing is that KCC do not care about your offspring directly and are only concerned to fulfil quotas, meet targets and where possible make a quick buck.  If they have found the money for this school ask yourself why at a time when there are still financial constraints.  If this goes through you will not get what you think you are asking for, you wll get a whole lot of what you most certainly were not asking for and you won't like it.

#239: None - Please stop this arguinWhose children though?

 

The people of Tunstall do not want a blot on the landscape and that is simply what it is. If you have worked hard for many years to have a good house and live within a nice community you certainly do not deserve to be treated like KCC and the CHURCH OF ENGLAND SCHOOL are treating people.KCC have railroaded this proposal through and the school has brainwashed the "mums and dads" into thinking they need something that actually NO ONE WANTS. A sign of the times this is Britain at its worst and certainly parenting at its worst.

For those who did not attend last nights meeting, you may like to hear what one of our elected Councillors said in relation to the residents of Tunstall
TUNSTALL RESIDENTS SHOULD GET INTO THE REAL WORLD

This Councillor lives in Graveney, near to Graveney School which has 98 pupils!!!! I wonder how he would feel if they were going to triple his local school?

They did not DEBATE, They did NOTHING.

So for any RESIDENTS OF WOODSTOCK WARD, please contact Swale Borough Council and complain that we do not have elected representation at the Borough. If you need an email address, please post

For ALL SITTINGBOURNE RESIDENTS, This proposal WILL AFFECT YOU, PLEASE WRITE OR EMAIL

THE FIGHT GOES ON. WE NEED YOUR HELP, WATCH THIS SPACE!!

#347: - SBC PLANNING FIASCO

It's a 2 form entry school, in operation for 195 days out of 365 per year. It's not an airport or a retail park or an industrial zone. Time to get things in perspective.

#16: - 21st Century Education f

 

 

#24: - Resident

They have been trying to build houses there since forever.  The Science Park proposal didn't go ahead and this allows them another shot at it 'by the back door'.