Tuesday, 11 October 2011

Council Welcomes New School for East Reading

Reading Borough Council News Release

Council Welcomes New School for East Reading


Reading Borough Council today welcomed to the news that plans for a new school for East Reading can progress on the next stage, but has said it will continue to campaign for it to also cater for children aged 11-13.

Yesterday evening the Department of Education (DfE) announced that plans for a flagship ‘University Technical College’ (UTC) at the Crescent Road site in East Reading for 14 to 19 year old can proceed to the next stage.

As the local education authority, Reading Borough Council has always backed the need for a new school in East Reading on the basis it would be for 11 to 19 year old.

That continues to be the case and the Council now intends to continue to work closely with DfE officials to persuade them for the need for the school to be open to younger Key Stage 3 pupils aged 11 to 13, as well as to 14 to 19 year old.

John Ennis, Reading’s Lead Councillor for Education and children’s Services, said: “It is no secret that there is a need for extra school places in East Reading for pupils. The news that the new school has moved a step closer is of course to be welcomed, but the Council will continue to put its case to the DfE that children should be able to attend from the age of 11. We want to see as many Reading parents as possible have access to the fantastic facilities and education that will be on offer at the new UTC.”

Proposals for a new UTC in east Reading are being led by Oxford and Cherwell Valley College with the support of Reading Borough Council and Wokingham Borough Council. The new UTC would combine technical and academic studies.

The need for extra secondary school places for parents and children in East reading were illustrated earlier this year when Reading-based parents - with support of Reading Borough Council - won its campaign to change back the proposed admission arrangements for Maiden Erlegh School in Wokingham to one of simple radial distance, rather than the alternative proposed.

No comments:

Post a Comment