simonethebeaver

Hi ktk I'm sure you'll be pleased to know there's already a discussion on this here. http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?29,1532959

So some Milk Spots fall into the closures?

Naatm, I hope that's true. The OP comes from information at a Milk Spot cafe. I'd love to think we're preserving some services if the worst comes to the worst.

Buggie, the staff were only told yesterday. I've had emails about it from service staff, and an MSLC representative, and it's definitely happening. It's part of a general look at the roles of the children's centre midwives. It may be that this should be going to someone else though.

LondonMix, I'm slightly confused at where talk of a nodal point on Northcross Road has come from. Habs only ever said they would look at where an off-site nodal point made sense based on demand. There IS a shortage of provision to the east as much as to the north - there are areas where you can't get into any local secondary except perhaps one of Harris Boys/Girls but heaven help you if your child is the wrong sex. Parent after parent told us this while we were trudging the streets handing out leaflets. Habs I think changed their admissions under challenge a while back, you're right. Charter didn't change theirs but applied them differently. For what it's worth I hope they end up changing safest walking distance to crow flies for Charter 1 as the current measurement does disadvantage anyone living on an estate!

I'm also wondering what the point of a consultation is if only only model of admissions policy is allowed under the rules (which I think are more ambiguous than you do). Kingsdale's lottery causes big issues for local children, who are undoubtedly deprived of a local school, but we're told that the school is an academy so nothing can be done.

Others have said it, LondonMix. I personally don't get into this school (well, my children. I'm past that point, thank goodness) wherever the nodal point sits, so to that extent it isn't my issue. But I think you're underestimating the lack of access to schools in the areas to the east, and overstating what that population is asking for, which is two nodal points, one on the site and one to the east, rather than just one off-site point. The people living by the site get in whatever. The site is incidental - why do DfE want to know about parental demand if it's less relevant than wherever the school ends up? The policy is so problematic it's not surprising that it leads to frustration and confusion!

But they look broadly comparable to me, given that you'll end up with a mix of a few wards. None of them is drastically lower or higher in the national context than any other. What are those stats for Village ward? That's where I'd expect to see a difference. Apologies for misunderstanding why you'd posted details about national and ethnic background. I hope you can see why I am uneasy that people asking Charter to consider a nodal point off site are being called snobs? It seems a rather cheap way to try to silence people. I attended two events held by Habs at which people, hundreds of them, were very clear that they wanted to see a nodal point off-site, and I'm certain they weren't looking to socially engineer the new school's intake. The consultation is meant to consult!

The site won't work for me either. MPs should only really get involved in issues when asked to by their own constituents. So someone in her neck of the woods needs to inform her. Same with the other local MPs.

Thank you. Those are interesting. But at the same time (a) fairly close, certainly South Camberwell and Peckham Rye, (b) a pretty blunt instrument to make sophisticated conclusions from, of the sort that really should be made before making big claims about social mix. Eg how many of those with deprivation indicators have school age children? (Many will be pensioners, in all three wards.) How many children in the ward are privately educated, therefore removing them from the equation? To what degree is non-white or non-British an indicator of deprivation in each area? And so on. [On edit] Looking at the deprivation indices for the first time ever, I see the caveat is made about how much can be read into the stats alone. For example, one index of deprivation is 'not owning a car', which is clearly a major issue in some parts of the country but a lifestyle choice in a city. This is what I mean about wanting to see a more complex argument on social mix if it is to become such an important part of the issue.

Are there figures to support the claim that south Camberwell is more diverse than Nunhead and Peckham Rye? Sorry, a diversion and I do apologise, because I wholeheartedly support the premise of this thread. But I keep seeing it being said as fact, that one bit of the community is more socially diverse than others, and it doesn't make much sense to me. And seems to be promoting the setting of one part of the area against another.

Try the Phoenix? Gets good reports from friends. http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/jul/20/-sp-phoenix-kids-comic-girls-boys-corpse-talk-tamsin-deep-children

At that event people were told that funding for the cafes was safe. What a turnaround. We need to make a noise here. Please contact your MP and councillors if you care about this. Helen Hayes' office is already aware but obviously the more voices, the higher priority the campaign becomes. Helen.hayes.MP@parliament.uk. Councillor Barrie Hargrove (Barrie.hargrove@southwark.gov.uk) has responsibility for public health. Obviously we need to talk to other relevant MPs and Lambeth councillors. The Lewisham campaign was led by the Lewisham MSLC and I think someone has already alerted the Kings' MSLC but I'll make sure that happens. A petition will be online very soon too, but we need to make our opposition known all over the place.

That is appalling. Those clinics enabled me to breastfeed my children. I believe there was a similar threat in Lewisham and the community fought back. We need to do the same.

My son has done cubs and scouts with this group and he 'hates religion' so they must be pretty ecumenical. Nigel and his assistants work really hard and I hope some more helpers can be found.

Thank you, Simon, for the explanation. I'm slightly surprised that Charter feels the need to do this given that there should be room for all whatever way round it's placed. It does suggest a certain attitude to a category of children which some unenlightened people view as presenting problems, given how unusual this prioritisation is, and your statement rather implies that they are not viewed as part of the community, unlike siblings - I would hope you don't mean that so you might want to think about the wording for future use. For full disclosure I speak as the parent of two children who have fallen into this category. I hadn't realised before that you are Designate Chair of Governors. Congratulations! But also a bit worrying that you weren't involved in the discussion around the admissions policy given the big role governors usually play in this area. Was this before your appointment? I assume you'll be fully included in decision-making after the consultation? Good luck in your position - I know you bring a lot of expertise with you.

I grew up in dull suburbia, where my parents moved for a good school. It was fine. Hard to know how much of the casual racism and homophobia were of their time - this was twenty years ago - but as a swotty teenager I yearned for excitement and culture, Adrian Mole style. No more drinking, drugs and pregnancy than anywhere else particularly. I vowed never to return but occasionally I look at the schools and the price of housing and GET why we moved there, from zone 3 London. I suspect that's more the experience - to go somewhere duller on the outskirts rather than plunge into rural isolation. My old school is not a grammar, although does select I think some proportion of kid on ability, and regularly outperforms most grammar schools, so I can see why parents are prepared to head to one of the dullest places on earth!

My daughter had a dreadful time with chicken pox and I intend to vaccinate my baby because of this. If I'd exposed my little girl to chicken pox in the first place, I'd have hated myself for it. Odds are that your child would be OK but it can be really serious - please don't do it.

Thank you, Simon. Have you had a chance to find out the rationale behind the unusual admissions criteria prioritisation yet?

I've read that Tunbridge Wells has a big teen drug problem. The epitome of safe suburbia.

We are planning to move out of London before our second starts secondary, but only because we want to move out anyway and want to be in place for her to start a new school. It's nothing to do with schools though but a desire to live nearer family. We almost moved this year but didn't, partly because our eldest is so happy at his secondary and the local school outside London just couldn't compete. I would never leave London just because of schooling - the ex-curricular stuff and width of curriculum alone in London are very hard to beat.

Most schools that I'm aware of place children with medical/social need above siblings, including the current Charter School. so it's quite a striking difference, and I think I'm not the only person a bit nervous at what it means in terms of attitudes towards inclusivity in the new school. If you could let us know what the reasoning behind this is, I'd be grateful.

Bawdy-Nan, the proposed admissions criteria are on the Charter website and there's a link on the consultation questionnaire. I agree on the named EHC but I guess it's up to the school how they prioritise kids with a medical or social need. Most schools place this as second priority after looked after or adopted children, which is why I was surprised to see it lower.

Bawdy-Nan, the proposed admissions criteria are on the Charter website and there's a link ont

I've noticed that the proposed admissions criteria unusually puts children with an EHC and social/medical needs below siblings. I've heard about some remarks made last night about this that, as the parent of a child with SEN, I find worrying, but obviously I wasn't there. Can someone clarify whether Charter explained the reasoning behind the priority order?