Signatures 23 total
Page: 1
-
1
Name: Steve Upton on Jun 7, 2007Comments: Everyone I've spoken to is against the 50 weeks.Flag
-
2
Name: Alison Sykes on Jun 8, 2007Comments: Really unhappy with 50 wks a year . Quite happy with term-time only.Flag
-
3
Name: Barry Sykes on Jun 8, 2007Comments: very disappointed with Sercos lack of flexibility and understanding in this matterFlag
-
4
Name: Ian Bradbury on Jun 9, 2007Comments:Flag
-
5
Name: Paul Sentance on Jun 10, 2007Comments:Flag
-
6
Name: Ruth Sentance on Jun 10, 2007Comments:Flag
-
7
Name: Julie Jordan on Jun 11, 2007Comments: I attended the recent meeting arranged by Serco, subsequent to the new 50 week a year programme being introduced. Like myself, not one parent present spoke in support of the new swimming lessons programme. Those who did speak were strongly in favour of a return to term time only swimming lessons. Parents and children have busy lives for 39 weeks of the year. We don't need the extra commitment of a further 11 weeks during school holidays! II'm not expecting an Olympic swimmer from these lessons, just a child who can swim! I put forward these objections in person to Justine Hooper at the Swan Pool when the new timetable was introduced. After having now paid for 4 lessons which my son has been unable to attend due to holiday commitments I stand by my original comments and request a return to term time lessons.Flag
-
8
Name: Anne-Marie Cooper on Jun 14, 2007Comments: Object to paying for something my child will not use in order to keep his place through holidays. This is purely commercial - teachers, like children need a break from routine and lessons in holidays.Flag
-
9
Name: Karen Sutton on Jun 14, 2007Comments: As with school, Children need a break now and then to play and have fun.Flag
-
10
Name: Silke Everatt on Jun 14, 2007Comments:Flag
-
11
Name: M Bevington on Jun 14, 2007Comments: 1. Please have a survey of all parents to find out what they actually want. 2.Children's holidays and cover teachers break vital continuity under the new system. 3. The old system worked well - why make it worseFlag
-
12
Name: Sue Brazier on Jun 15, 2007Comments: We do not intend to come to lessons in the school holidays. We all need a break from our routines sometime. A 50 week programme is not something we require. There surely should have been consultations re this change, especially since the increase in charges is significant.Flag
-
13
Name: Sue Brazier on Jun 15, 2007Comments: We do not intend to come to lessons in the school holidays. We all need a break from our routines sometime. A 50 week programme is not something we require. There surely should have been consultations re this change, especially since the increase in charges is significant.Flag
-
14
Name: Anonymous on Jun 16, 2007Comments: Something needs to be done abou these lessons and the Swan pool generally. Staff are demotivated, lessons are a joke, the boiler/chlorine and temperature problems just add insult to injury. People are already moving to Stowe (or elsewhere) for lessons, Gym members are moving to Bourton Mill and Whittlebury, Swim club to Aylesbury and staff to other jobs. Something needs to be done before we all boycott!!Flag
-
15
Name: Sarah Britten on Jun 18, 2007Comments: Although my children no longer attend swimming lessons at swan pool I objected last time they did this and pulled them out, my youngest would start in the next year or so but under no circumstances on a 50 wk basis. In all sports there should be breaks, MJFC quote child protection issues for stopping training from May to September, surely for child development this should apply to swimming also.Flag
-
16
Name: Mrs S Eddy on Jun 18, 2007Comments: Imposing a 50 week compulsory timetable is a flagrant attempt to extract more money from the consumer, when Serco are very aware that school holidays are a precious resource for children and parents, and not a time that people wish to continue with term-tine activities.Flag
-
17
Name: Clare Nisbett on Jun 18, 2007Comments: The cost increase is preventing me from starting my third child with swimming lessons as i cannot afford 50 weeks x 3!!Flag
-
18
Name: Rachael Bishop on Jun 18, 2007Comments:Flag
-
19
Name: C & D Soanes on Jun 21, 2007Comments: I can't believe anyone wants this 50m week system. Please change it back to term time only!!Flag
-
20
Name: C & D Soanes on Jun 21, 2007Comments: I can't believe anyone wants this 50m week system. Please change it back to term time only!!Flag
-
21
Name: Philip + Jennifer Sturtivant on Jul 2, 2007Comments: We only want swimming lessons in term time. Most children - ours included - will not attend regimented lessons duuring school holidays, and this change means being forced to pay for lessons that Serco will not have to deliver. Disgraceful idea. Stowe School offer the kind of service we want for a mereFlag
-
22
Name: Anonymous on Jul 2, 2007Comments: The way that the swimming lessons are now organised means that neither the Parents or Children get a break which is not good also there are no allowances for holidays!!!Flag
-
23
Name: Joanne Eastwood on Jul 3, 2007Comments: Children are exhausted with school they need a break and so do we! The cost if you have more than one child is prohibitive. The classes are too large 12 un one class I would rather have smaller classes over a shorter time then they would learn to swim! We were given a like it or lump it scenario with zero notice - apalling!Flag
Page: 1