Chillerton and Rookley Primary School

‘Save our School’ is the call from parents and village community amid plans to close primary school (updated)

Since the Isle of Wight council announced plans to merge Chillerton and Rookley Primary School with Godshill Primary School a group of parents and community members have organised themselves to oppose the closure and to ‘save the school’.

The Chillerton and Rookley parents say they object to the proposed closure on the following grounds.

One: Reassured school would not close
In the view of the parents and community members, they say they believe the Stenbury Federation has “not acted in good faith”.

They say,

“Parents were reassured a number of times, in writing, by the Executive Head Teacher that there were no plans to close the school. Parents made decisions regarding their children’s futures based on letters written by a person in a position of trust. 

“In June 2020, the pre-school staff at Chillerton and Rookley Primary School were made redundant and the pre-school moved off-site. This was done without any prior engagement or consultation. 

“Pupils were told in June, at a time of great anxiety, that they were being transferred to another school in September. Many did not get to say goodbye to their friends.  

“The decision regarding the proposed changes will occur after the local council elections. We believe that this is not a coincidence.

“There is no evidence of effort to attract new pupils to the school or explore other options to remain viable.”

Two: Lack of investment
The parents and community members have concerns about the pupil numbers used by the Stenbury Federation in their decision-making.

They say,

“In June 2020 all parents were informed via letter that Reception and Year 6 were moving to Godshill School and the pre-school would cease to exist on the Chillerton site. This resulted in parents feeling pressured into removing their children from The Federation altogether or enrolling them at Godshill School to ensure a place.

“There are no new pupils joining because there is currently no pre-school or reception classes on site! The natural succession has been severed by the Federation.

“Our argument is that if the school was effectively run and invested in, it would certainly be viable and have the ability to attract sufficient pupil numbers (as it has previously done).”

Three: Inadequate facilities
The parents and community members also have concerns about what they consider ‘inadequate facilities’ at the school.

They say,

“The past two Ofsted reports state that Godshill School requires improvement. Relocating all of the pupils from Chillerton is unlikely to improve this.

“Godshill School is a small site and social distancing, bubbles etc will be difficult if strict Covid-19 restrictions are implemented in the future.

“Parking and traffic around School Crescent is already disruptive and dangerous without additional vehicles during school pick up and drop off.”

Four: Discriminating a rural community
Finally, the parents and community members express their concerns about how the loss of the school will affect the village.

They say,

“The site will likely be sold off for holiday homes.

“It is one of very few non-domestic buildings in the area and an important part of the community. For what other reason would people visit Chillerton? It will be just another drive through village

“Closing the school is discriminatory towards rural communities. Chillerton School serves many vulnerable, economically inactive families and non-driving parents who will now have to travel further. If they lived in a town, they would almost certainly be within walking distance of a school.”

Find out more
People have until 19th March 2021 to submit their comments about the planned merger by emailing

SandLBusinessSupport@IOW.gov.uk

For more information, visit the IWC Website.

Response from Governors
News OnTheWight contacted the Co-Chair of Governors for the Federation for a response and we were asked to refer our queries to the Isle of Wight council’s press office.

Article edit
11.20am 25th February 2021 – Response from Co-Chair of Governors added

Advertisement
Subscribe
Email updates?
4 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
GarageElfinIOW
11, December 2023 2:47 pm

Whilst I accept development can cause issues with flooding there are some fundamentals that need addressing. Water moves top the lowest point and in some case takes with it whatever is in the way. A lot of the islands flooding is simply due to poor drainage that is to say that water is not collected and funnelled from the higher ground to the lower ground. It has… Read more »

RootDown'92
11, December 2023 3:36 pm

Its very evident that the extremes of weather that have been predicted for decades are starting to arrive on our shores. Climate change was always going to create this situation and we must now look at the future with a sense of dread and face the fact that our financial and human resource needs to be directed in a ‘war effort’ to mitigate and prepare. Meanwhile we… Read more »

Angela Hewitt
Reply to  RootDown'92
12, December 2023 7:37 am

Who exactly is using this fossil fuel?

Snowwolf1
Reply to  Angela Hewitt
12, December 2023 10:45 am

Indirectly everyone, even the suppliers of gas and electricity.

peterspink10
11, December 2023 5:51 pm

I agree with Councillor Lilley, although I think the moratorium should be in respect of development within 1 mile of the entire coastline of the Island. I also support delaying the Draft Island Planning Strategy. It is ‘crazy’ to determine where we are going to build houses for the next 15 years without taking into account recent events. Peter Spink.

ThomasC
Reply to  peterspink10
11, December 2023 6:49 pm

So keen to keep that complete set of local policies off the table, aren’t you, Peter? So keen to keep enabling developers to build wherever they fancy, based on National Policy that enables them to claim ‘local need’, rather than allowing the IWC to put policies in place to protect the Island. It’s almost as if your actions are carefully designed to allow barely-controlled development to continue,… Read more »

peterspink10
Reply to  ThomasC
11, December 2023 9:03 pm

I know that you can see me Thomas C .
Unlike you I am happy to give my name rather than hide behind a pseudonym.
Tell me who you are and then I will answer your nonsensical comments. Peter Spink

ThomasC
Reply to  peterspink10
16, January 2024 8:11 pm

‘ThomasC’ is hardly a pseudonym, except to the terminally unimaginative and here you are. Thanks for your previous comment though – it means a lot to me and you.

Angela Hewitt
Reply to  ThomasC
12, December 2023 7:39 am

So Thomas C, you think the Island will still be here in 100 yrs time if climate change carries on the way it is

elemental
Reply to  Angela Hewitt
12, December 2023 11:22 am

It’s more a question of whether IOW would still be inhabited, I feel.

Rhos yr Alarch
11, December 2023 9:13 pm

Agreed; but ill-concealed upstream developments also need a re-think, in the catchment areas of watercourses draining down to the coast…

manfredmann
12, December 2023 1:57 am

Councillor Lilley is absolutely right, so is Councillor Spink. This is not a political issue this is something that will have an impact on everyone regardless of political persuasion or wealth. “Extreme” weather events are becoming normal. We need to look very hard at where houses are built. It is absolute folly to continue to earmark green field sites for development. Green fields act as natural flood… Read more »

Angela Hewitt
12, December 2023 7:35 am

I have noticed that when there have been road improvements “resurfacing” the height of these roads have been significantly increased. Outiside my own home is a clascic example. Doesn’t this create dams everywhere?. Infact don’t housing developments create dams. Drainage MUST now be a significant part of every planning application including road improvements – although island roads doesn’t need planning permission for all the potential damage it’s… Read more »

chippy2
Reply to  Angela Hewitt
12, December 2023 6:08 pm

i agree that drainage should feature in planning applications. In my experience it is already included. When we extended our house nearly 20 yrs ago we were not allowed to discharge roof or driveway water into the sewer. I would be one of the last to make excuses for Southern Water but many of the older properties in our village do just that with the result that… Read more »

elemental
12, December 2023 11:37 am

The only housing genuinely needed IOW, are adequate rental properties, built & managed by local Councils, to help people transition people from the always insecure, often unsafe & inevitably overpriced, properties in the unregulated private renting racket. With less private tenancies required, that property would be freed up for those able & willing to purchase. We do not need newbuild detached houses on sterile estates & until… Read more »

ovener
12, December 2023 12:23 pm

£250,000,000 spent so far on sending no-one to Rwanda. £93,000,000 cut in financial support for the Island since 2015 (supported by Seely) We desperately need homes and infrastructure. We need more NHS dentists, GPs and hospital capacity Yet our Tory MP is only concerned with disciplining a black female member of the royal Family. Where is the Island Deal Bob? I’ll be voting Labour next time. At… Read more »

chas3
13, December 2023 9:08 am

Climate change has been a continuous process for Millions of Years with the Island , no matter what we try to do we can’t stop it , may as well ban Volcanoe Eruptions ! . This is a special place and building more Houses will make things worse……how long before the Holiday Homes fall into the sea at Atherfield Bay ? Very sad for all those affected… Read more »

reCaptcha Error: grecaptcha is not defined