Shuggy

I work in East Croydon and I go on my motorbike or get the train from ED to West Croydon, it takes 25 mins - then 5 minute walk to East Croydon. Otherwise jump on a bus to Forest Hill, train to East Croydon takes 14 mins from there. The traffic is pretty awful so I haven't even attempted it in the car, but I can get there in 20 minutes on my motorbike.

If you can't wait for the email: log on to the e-admissions website and see your child's offer there now: https://www.eadmissions.org.uk/eAdmissions/app

During the evening of the 1st March 2016 you will be sent your secondary school/UTC outcome by email. Also you will receive notification by either parentcomms/text if you signed up to them. You will be able to view the results of your application online during the evening of 1 March 2016. You will also be sent a letter by first class post on 1 March 2016 which will provide more information regarding the decision and what to do next. Application results will not be provided over the telephone. From Southwark admissions site http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200290/secondary_school_admissions/1827/offers_of_a_secondary_school_place

colabottle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Shuggy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > Hi Shuggy, > Could you please confirm where this 1.5km map has > come from? It is something Charter are presenting > in relation to their anticipated catchment? > Thanks. Hi colabottle. I made the map. Nothing to do with Charter and the 1.5 km distance was purely to see how far the catchment would have to stretch to cover Lyndhurst in the north and the bulk of the ED schools to the south.

The attached map shows 1,500 m as the crow flies from the hospital site. A bit bigger than Charter 1 catchment but I think you're right bras879, it does seem to cover most of South Camberwell and ED without making a nodal entry elsewhere.

bras879: I was just concerned that they might be planning using a nodal point further north than the hospital site itself. I imagine that for the first couple of years it shouldn't be hard bringing in the kids from all the schools you mentioned. But if the catchment was to shrink to the size of Charter 1 say, then I can't see how it can continue to reach Lyndhurst, which was mentioned in Littlek1cker's post, without making a nodal point to the north. Maybe Charter 1's tiny catchment isn't the best example, and the new school will be able to serve all those in East Dulwich and South Camberwell who need it.

littlek1cker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- ... another is the area served by Lyndhurst and > Dog Kennel Hill schools (South Camberwell ward) Congratulations on the successful bid?I'm delighted that we are getting a new secondary school for East Dulwich. Or at least I was, until I read this. And then I questioned whither we were at all? Surely serving the children from Lyndhurst school in Camberwell as well as those from all the primaries in East Dulwich that you went around campaigning and collecting signatures from just isn't possible? Are you suggesting a nodal intake north of East Dulwich, towards Camberwell? Or were you just making a point about the crow-flies policy from the hospital site having to serve children to the north too? Thanks

reshamkotecha Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am aware of the acute shortage of > secondary school places and that is why I will be > supporting a secondary school on the Dulwich > Hospital site and also why I am strongly > supporting the application by the Gipsy Hill > Federation to open a secondary school locally. Resham, Can I please just confirm that you don't mean that you are supporting the Gipsy Hill school to open ON the hospital site? You may be aware that local parents have been fighting to open a much needed local school for East Dulwich children on the hospital site. The last thing anyone needs is the Gipsy Hill school there. I understand that proposal is to work as a feeder school for that federations existing group of primaries in and around Gipsy Hill. So it would not be for local children. I'm surely being paranoid here, but could you please just clarify that you mean that you are supporting either/ or of the Charter or Haberdasher's bids to open a local secondary for local kids? Many thanks

It's very helpful to get clarity on the council's position Victoria, many thanks. It seems that what is now needed (beyond everyone getting behind the application(s) and petition for the secondary on the hospital site) is to work out if it is possible to actually un-approve or stop the Harris Nunhead Primary in some other way. Why should a lack of alternative site be such an issue when the school is not needed at all and could in fact be built to the detriment of existing primaries? It is increasingly clear that it should never have been approved in the first place. The justification for the decision seems to be based on evidence presented for the ED Harris Primary (Police station site) and no one even seems aware of any public support being gathered. Is there a facility to appeal to the DoE to reconsider their decision? Could we appeal to Harris to pull out? Given the strength of feeling, lack of evidence and other circumstances of this case, surely the potential adverse publicity if the school was to go ahead could be something that the government or even the Harris Federation may want to avoid?

There is a petition! If you want the Dulwich Hospital site to be used solely for a secondary school and a health centre then I would recommend signing it: http://www.change.org/p/david-laws-mp-don-t-squeeze-two-schools-onto-the-dulwich-hospital-site?utm_campaign=friend_inviter_chat&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=share_petition&utm_term=permissions_dialog_false&share_id=fjhVQrJNIB

Some people on twitter saying a direct lightning strike in Dulwich. Not sure where it struck but it was incredibly loud.

Thanks for the explanation and the background James. I'm not sure I understand what the actual motion was though and why you objected to it?

Slightly alarmed by tweet just now from Peter John, leader of Southwark Council, claiming Southwark LibDems have voted AGAINST a new secondary in ED. "@peterjohn6 Amazing - @swklibdems vote AGAINST Labour's motion for a new secondary school in East Dulwich. Whose side are they on?" Then Southwark Lib Dems tweeted saying LABOUR have opposed their amendments. James, could you clarify what this is all about please?

I think they used figures from Southwark's report on school places strategy which was commented upon on this thread when it came out back in March. It shows a defect of secondary places from 2016, the shortfall reaching -527 places by 2019 if no further schools are built. The numbers are borough wide only though and it concludes: "Examining demand and supply at this more local level indicates that the pressure for places is likely to be felt in the south of the borough from 2016 onwards, flowing through to the rest of the borough from 2018 onwards." http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s45063/Report%20School%20Places%20Strategy%20Update.pdf

How were they able to demonstrate public support for this primary in the free school application process when no one seems to have even heard about it until after it has actually been approved!

I think this might be the leaflet: http://www.haaf.org.uk/Mainfolder/East-Dulwich-School/Meeting-leaflet.pdf

Tessa Jowell on the case on Twitter: ‏@jowellt I've followed up on this with M Gove on need for a secondary school. I'll put my letter to him up online soon

There is the Office Club in the Bussey Building in Peckham. Run by the same people as the Rooftop Film Club. You can try it out for free. Nice folk and still plenty of space. http://www.jointheofficeclub.com/

With Charter joining the fray yesterday there was an increase in interest and legitimate debate around the school application, and so it was not surprising that new people joined the forum and added their voices to the thread. But the most vociferous of those: Stateeducation, Arthur Facksake, charlotteswebcam and girlgardener?coincidentally?all joined the forum for the first time yesterday and all did the same thing: posted attacks against the new East Dulwich school steering committee and local councillor. I don't think that all those demands for "transparency" coming from new, separate accounts is actually the most "transparent" way to conduct the debate.

These four schools have taken part in a feasibility study to see if they can expand, which would be great as it seems possible. But the report goes on to acknowledge that expansion is not ideal and new facilities are needed: "35. Although it may be theoretically possible to meet all the longer term demand from within the existing estate it is unlikely that this approach would be the best way to do so. Meeting the rapid rise in demand in this way would naturally put pressure on existing sites and facilities, and potentially impact on current pupils and their learning. 36. The experience of the primary expansion programme has shown that expanding existing schools becomes more complex as tight sites that must continue to provide the highest standard of education for pupils come into scope. These schemes can become costly per place when compared to a new build school. 37. The establishment of a new secondary school in the borough to meet the place demand that is likely to be felt from 2016 in the south of the borough and from 2018 borough-wide needs to be given serious consideration. A free school proposal is emerging from a group of local parents who are exploring a parent promoted secondary free school in East Dulwich. Officers will keep members advised on the progress of this proposal." I find it hard to read this in any other way than what we are proposing fits Southwark's plans to meet the shortfall of places.

As the actual figures show, that sufficiency of places will not last beyond 2016. In fact they show the shortfall of places across the borough increasing, leaving a shortage of over 500 places by 2019. So this school is not just a way of addressing a temporary local bulge but dealing with an ongoing and worsening problem. The Council know this, which is why the leaders of Southwark gave us their full support in providing a secondary school in this area to open by 2016.

Full report here: http://tinyurl.com/olo9ya3

That's quite an interesting reading of the report bornagain. To take your first point: "1. There is over capacity in the secondary provision across the borough until 2016." That isn't quite the whole picture is it? Or even the whole sentence. What the report actually says: "... overall there is significant capacity within Southwark schools to meet the forecast demand for year 7 places until 2016 AND A DRAMATIC INCREASE IN DEMAND FROM THEREON." We hope this new school will provide places to meet that dramatic increase in demand locally. Which is why the report sites this project under the list of way of "meeting future secondary demand". It's also interesting how you interpret the increase in demand for places as only being an issue for the north of the borough when the report clearly says: "A particular concern is the provision of accessible local secondary places in the south of the borough, where a lack of direct travel routes from home to school means that secondary schools that may be geographically close and have available places are difficult to reach. Examining demand and supply at this more local level indicates that the pressure for places is likely to be felt in the south of borough from 2016 onwards, flowing through to the rest of the borough from 2018 onwards."

TE44-- this venture IS parent driven. No provider is yet involved and no provider is behind the scenes pushing their wishes on us or the community. We approached them and they are not involved in the process yet in any way. As for the site, local government has no say in how it is used so could not effect the kind of forced situation as you highlighted at Sulivan Priamry. No future council can force a change in usage either as it is not council property. The NHS currently own the site and the decision on its future will be made by the treasury and cabinet office under the Right to Contest application. We don't have a provider yet, but I'd hope they will explain their plans and consult once their is.

TE44--no the steering group is not receiving guidance with the application as we don't intend to make the application. The idea is for a provider to take over and handle things before then. We did discuss educational institutions that we would like to approach once we had gauged the lack of appetite for an academy chain (Harris being the main one in this area). There is no other party involved that hasn't been divulged. It is truly disgraceful what happened to Sulivan Primary. The situation here is quite different though. No school is being taken over, or closed. No site is being taken over and no provider will be forced on anyone. We are looking to bring in extra school places to an area where they are required. We should be clear on the intentions of a provider, and be able to say so I should hope, from 31st March.