Curmudgeon

Was surprised to see it closed on the way out at 10.30 this morning and still shut at 4pm - BBC traffic news says a 'police incident' - on the way back there was actually a catering van there none of my business of course but anyone know what's going on over there?

having lived here for more years than I care to mention I am mildly interested at how ridiculously expensive the entire area has become with flats selling for considerably more than houses sold a decade ago. I remember when you could buy all this for a fiver and still have change for a poke of chips on the way home ..yaddaydadda feel sorry for people trying to get on the housing ladder - good luck

whether you like it or not is beside the point I'm afraid - the house-owner patently does and that's the end of that I don't see how people can get particularly worked up by a mural personally I hate the one opposite Goose Green playground and that's famous

CHOOSE excuse me while I laugh people still think there's a choice

"I suppose that if you're really unclear you'd ask the school what map it used before you relied on Bing " Parents / Families have no access to the maps used by the admission authorities - it would be so much easier if they did and there was a map you could look at with the distances offered in March, April, May, June in different colours over the last few years

andanotherthing Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And another thing.... I'm having trouble > understanding the rationale for the argument of > parents who say that their choice has been > retrospectively removed, or that their > understanding that they had a reasonable or good > chance of their kids getting into Charter has been > (unfairly?) shown to be wrong - thwarted I > suppose. > 1) The Directgov website Schoolfinder puts the postcode of say Dog Kennel Hill Primary at a far greater distance than the postcode of, say Heber School until it's re-design over the last week. 2) The online mapping sites like Bing, where you can plot walking distance also put the postcode of Dog Kennel Hill at a far greater distance than that of say Heber School No information was provided by the council / in the booklets that there was an appeal being mounted Historically being offered in the first round is as good an indicator as any that you are within the catchment of a specific school How do you think parents glean the information when the school says both it has no catchment and that the greatest distance was 2000 metres

Interestingly I actually understood ALL that before - but thank you for taking the time Now if you have a 180 children living within 1800 metres say of a school and all of a sudden people who previously were counted to have lived 2000 metres away are now deemed to live 1400metres away you can see, I am sure, how the goalposts have changed remarkably for those living above 1401 metres away - far larger numbers of children push those people out of the boundaries It is interesting that you comment about a family of 4 moving in the 'day before the application form is due in' this is entirely the problem that some families now face - a whole bank of housing have suddenly moved in to the house in front of you - only it's too late to change your preferences because nobody has invented a time machine .. yet!

If Steiner schooling is even vaguely on the horizon I would encourage everyone to read up as much as possible bearing in mind there's a huge anti-Steiner swathe and a huge PR machine behind Steiner. Google Anthroposophy for an interesting starting point

Renata Hamvas Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In terms of those of you like heber jumble queen > above, we won't know the effect of the > adjudicator's ruling on last place offered > distances until after the 1st March (less than 4 > weeks to go). The people who may be affected are > those who when they look at last year's figures > are on the edge of the last place offered > distance, which has been shrinking year on year. > Hi Renata I truly would like to understand this - if people who were 2.1km away are now 1.4km away (I read somewhere on this thread that this footpath shaves 700m off the previously calculated 'safest walking' distance) then surely those who are further than 1.4km away - say 1.5 to 1.7km and who were well within any boundaries of first allocation from any year over the past decade or so will be detrimentally affected. Charter stated this year that the furthest distance offered was 2000metres last year. What is this 'edge' of which you speak? Do you mean that those who live on roads where children have been going to Charter on first allocation for years and yet are further than 1.4km away are now 'boundary placements'? This is not what families have believed for over a decade. Or am I totally and utterly missing something? Once again I would like to stress that it is the retrospective removal of choice for all families involved that is under discussion and not the fairness of the adjudication.

People do though - they can, as I'm sure you're aware, feel extremely strongly about it. And some siblings do go out of their way to avoid their sisters / brothers during different stages of their lives, but equally some don't - both normal attitudes but as adults looking back on the same schooldays and teachers is a great feature of a shared upbringing of course the relationship with school is extremely different from secondary to primary for the parent, but I think that's irrelevant if we're considering the children

skyblue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So many reasons. I personally can't imagine why > you wouldn't want to. All kids at one school adds > to much more family involvement with that school, > especially if local. One school to focus on. > Teachers know siblings even cousins. Walking to > school. Sharing circles of friends. Growing up > together with shared references. Everything SkyBlue says - I actually don't understand the opposite approach either. It is important to our family that our children attend the same schools; that they are there to look out for each other; that they have the same reference points as they grow up. That they have their schooldays in a mixed gender, mixed demographic environment that helps them develop as rounded individuals and understand how to get on with all sorts. We don't separate the genders in the real world.

I'm sure you would but a childminder is not a nursery provision and you need to be careful about your plans here - if you're talking of nursery provision it's change of use and you need permission - if you wish to be a childminder you need to go through the course, no matter what your experience, it's only short but can take months to get on to. There's a lot of bureaucracy but as an early years teacher you'll probably be aware of it - and there'll be a restriction of 3 under-school aged children of which yours counts as one, I think it's 3 aged 5 - 8 and unlimited above

I hope so but as it only currently goes up to year 8 (or is it 9) there's a long way to go by the way the "chattering classes" are allowed to be concerned about the State Education system and where their children will be educated, by whom, and with whom.

I agree - having toured the school - I'd gladly send my mixed gender children to Harris 'boys' - but I would be unhappy just sending my son there

many muslim girls go to mixed schools but yes I would imagine that many existing parents, muslim or otherwise, of the girls' school would have imagined that going co-ed would detrimentally affect their girls' education, based on the available research out there regarding how much better girls do in an all-girl environment and how much better boys do a mixed one. (sorry can't source that assertion - it's dim and distant memories, but if I had the time I'd locate the studies again)

I accept your apology :))

Renata Hamvas Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > To clarify a few things: > Charter is not changing it's admission policy for > 2012 entry. This would require consultation and > wouldn't be implemented in the same year. The > problem has been how Charter has been implementing > its safe walking distance admissions criteria. I've said it before and I'm loathe to repeat myself but it is DE FACTO changing it's admissions - because people, like Heber Jumble Queen, carefully examined all available information when making their choices in October - using the directgov schoolsfinder website, using historical information on who goes to which school up and down their street those who are in the area beneficially affected by this adjudication may or may not have been aware of the appeal - so some may have factored this in to their choices and some may not - UNFAIR to retrospectively remove this choice those who live in the areas detrimentally affected by this adjutication were not aware of this appeal / issue before and again it is retrospective alteration safest walking distance is now to include a footpath which some people feel is not safe (see Albert's comments) - how were these people to know that the police have deemed a tree covered pathway as safe All I can assume from reading the adjudication is that it is fair based on the support from ordnance survey and police but to implement it retrospectively affects people directly - when other schools have faced the same adjudication as I previously mentioned the decision was made to make the change in time for the following admissions cycle allowing all stakeholders access to the same information

I'm pretty sure most of the community would like the Harris schools to be co-ed It certainly discounts them for my mixed gender children who I wish to go to the same school The problem, I understand, is the parents / governors of Harris Girls' school big big shame I was extremely impressed by Harris Boys last year I must say

that's good to hear Renata to be honest I'm sick of the closing - not-closing One 'O'Clock club conversations it's been going on reguarly for at least 10 years (to my knowledge) I now have threat-of-closure-fatigue ;-)

Carbonara Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Curmudgeon, Surely you are not advocating managing > any school intake in order to maintain a middle > class cohort? it's not a class issue particularly when the school has been acknowledged by this very adjudication to have a mixed demographic intake including a higher than average rate of students claiming FSM. However social deprivation does bring a greater number of demands in general, not in terms of specific cases, onto school provision and the higher proportion of children from socially deprived backgrounds the harder the task. So it will very much depend on the school management and capabilities. It would be disingenuous at best to turn this into an outmoded class argument.

Carbonara Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > As for Charter maintaining it's record of > achievement, well, what is that worth if it rests > solely or mainly on the intake? And there is no > reason why any potential shift in overall > demography should affect the achievement of any > one individual child within the school. Yet on a macro level and in the long-run it does and will affect the school, particularly as it already has an acknowledged and mixed demographic intake which it succeeds well with. This is what happens when you put bean counters in charge of education policy (quantifiable results) and publish league tables of narrow definition and promote a non-existant choice to families!

Well 20% FSM is way above national average and there was an acceptance that the school does have a comprehensively mixed background. The more FSM students the better the school finances based on the new 'pupil premium' which means more money that can be spent on all the students so that's good. I've read the adjudication I think it's fair if I'm honest - though I'm still stunned at the retrospective removal of informed choice from secondary school admissions for this year. Whether Charter will be able to keep up it's record of achievement with their revised catchment is yet to be seen.

encourage gentle - say it gently, show him at the time how to stroke gently / play gently and give him lots of praise for it intervene immediately you see it heading in the wrong way and encourage better and gentler play or distract with something else he's far too young to go over it again later IMO

the point of SATS is to evaluate the school and the teaching not the children coaching / tutoring SATS is surely not an appropriate use of anyone's time and money. Maybe you could focus on tuition for private school exams where there is a market

But those parents who have made their preferential decisions for school application based on the information provided by the government and LA, those who were previously well within the catchment both by DirectGov schoolfinder site and all the postcode mappings and the historical catchment of Charter School ARE disadvantaged by having incomplete information at time of application and subsequently their 'choice' revoked for the up-coming academic year Changing the goalposts after the applications have gone in is inequitable to those who it detrimentally affects. And of course you can't please all the people all the time but it seems another injustice to revoke 'choice' (laughable term) James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > So anyone who applied on the basis of the > advertised criteria should not be disadvantaged > and an injustice has been resolved. > > That Southwark council appears to have supported > the status quo is worrying.