LondonMix

Not just solving each others problems, but entertaining each other and finding novel ways to amuse ourselves in our leisure time. The global economy is very complex but at its essence, its all of us as individuals doing things for each other. We are all getting better / more productive at this. Those who don't know how to do anything or aren't very skilled at doing anything will have a poorer quality of life as they will have less to exchange with others.

In East Dulwich?

I'm not saying the gov't might get it wrong but they won't plan for less than this. The question needs to focus on the detail of whether the gov't analysis is correct if you believe its wrong, why.

I agree it?s troubling that the DfE appear to have refused to allow a different academy that already has well established links to the primary school and area to become the sponsor. It would be interesting to learn more: i.e. was the secondary school prepared and willing to take over Rove etc and what justification (if any) the DfE provided. Regarding tendering, the academy process doesn't work that way as there are not traditional costs to bid on. The DfE provides the funding to build academies to independent contractors (under the new laws) and the operational funding academies obtain is the same as LA schools (i.e. determined by number of pupils attending + the costs to cover services previously covered by the LA centrally). Therefore, there is no real objective way to set up a tender. Instead if a school wants to be created, it needs to prove to the DfE that there is objective demand for what its offering and it convinces parents to support it based on many factors (track record, proposed head teachers, specialist curriculum like the Judith Kerr bilingual primary etc). When a new school is being set up, what parents want is gauged by signing a petition in support of a particular school proposal. The idea being that if the school can fill a two-form evidenced by signatures from parents with children in the appropriate age group, then there is sufficient demand for it to apply to open at which point it will be assessed by the DfE on a whole host of other criteria. For failing schools, it less clear how the DfE determine who will take the school over and how the DfE consult with the parents in the community. It appears, if the allegations are true, that there might be some serious failings in the process. Intex, I share quite a few of your general concerns about the way Michael Gove is implementing the academies program. Edited to add: Those arguing that the DfE isn't implementing its policy as it outlined isn't correct though. In the summer of last year, Michael Gove announced that all primaries given a notice to improve by Ofsted would be converted (rather than just those with a long history of failure or in special measures). http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/academy-move-for-failing-primary-schools-7888545.html

First of all that hasn't happened and there is no reason to believe it would have happened even if certain elements of the emergency services were reduced in line with current projected needs. Saying, look a helicopter has tragically crashed in central London in a very rare accident, therefore we can't cut any services is illogical. You can argue that the gov't analysis for what level of emergency services London needs is wrong, but using this accident to oppose cuts is rediculous. Especially as any planning for minimum emergency service levels will never fall below what's needed to deal with a major terrorist event much less an accident like this.

Minder what kind of argument is that? We need to keep open extra fire stations in case more helicopters crash into cranes. Either we need the extra stations to be reasonably safe or we don't need them. No one single incident changes anything.

DJ, technology has continually made certain types of jobs redundant since the industrial revolution but overall employment is still relatively higher than at many points in the past. I don't believe that things are quite so bleak but this is just another period of transition which unfortunately has dislocations. I do agree that certain people have skills but learn in a different way and perhaps need to be assessed in a different way than can be captured by traditional testing methods. That the current system doesn't know how to capture the skills these people have and teach them they way they learn best is not the same thing as dooming them to a life of unskilled labour. What we should be thinking about perhaps is creating more apprenticeships, developing new teaching and assessment styles etc that are relevant to the modern economy's needs.

Intex, thanks for the links. I'll have a read.

Ofsted might agree with the governors and the Tory councils assessment that the school has improved. This might be a mistake by the DofE that will be reversed.

But what could that possibly be DJ. Even if we could create those kinds of unskilled jobs, those people's standard of living can't possibly keep up with everyone elses without government subsidies. I don't know if there really is a segment of the population that literally cannot genetically form part of the modern economy.

Sorry, who has been appointed education minister? Also, which sponsor did the parents want over Harris (if you know)? Depending on the other option's track-record, the DofE may have made a choice based on who they thought would do a better job. Without more of the facts behind your post its difficult to assess if your objections are reasonable.

Jobs, pay and the economy are very complex and it?s really easy to think forcing employers to pay employees more will solve many problems. However, it is impossible for any business to pay people more than the value they contribute to a business. A universal increase in labor costs (without any change in productivity) simply results in inflation. If the increase only affects a certain segment of the population, in a worst case scenario, it can actually reduce employment among that group. If you have to pay someone more than they contribute in value, it will either force your business to close or it will force you to substitute employees with technology (when possible). Some have mentioned that the economy needs to create more jobs, but creating more low / unskilled jobs won?t increase the standard of living. The only real way to do that is to train / retrain the unemployed so that they have the skills the economy needs so that they have the ability to create value that justifies paying them what we consider by today?s standards a decent quality of life.

Homosexuals are routinely burned at the stake? I find that hard to believe (having tried looking it up)! *Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Green Goose Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Singapore did and you wont see any flyposting > > there either. It's a much cleaner and more > > attractive living environment E.D. > > I believe oral sex is also illegal without > intercourse, it has one of the world's highest > execution rates - and homosexuals are routinely > burned at the stake. > > Just a few more of the fine Singaporean laws that > we here in ED would do well to emulate - for a > better society.

That seems good, no? The school was failing and scheduled to become an academy. They launched a campaign to argue that the school had turned itself around since its previous inspection. Ofstead are reinspecting the school (potentially as a direct result of the campaign). The dispute you refer to seems to be with the Department of Education's perhaps too hasty decision rather than Harris as such.

Local captures absolutely none of these concepts. Production techniques often have a more significant impact than the distance produce has to be shipped on the overall environmental resources used. There was a pretty decent discussion of all of this on another EDF thread recently (particularly towards the latter end of the posts) with several good links to academic articles and interviews with prominent researchers focused on these issues. http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,1028216

The Department of Education also assesses the proposed curriculum at the time the application to open the school is submitted. One of the points used to judge the application is that the curriculum is "well-balanced". It's really not a free-for-all.

H, there are some houses with what could be called a butterfly roof on Crystal Palace road (and probably elsewhere). I've mostly seen them on "natural" 3 storey houses in the area. Do a search on Southwark's planning portal to see if one had been done on your street. You'd be better off speaking to a builder who can give you a very rough quote but typically the cost to do a loft conversion on a roof that's not suitable for conversion (for whatever reason) is the standard costs of the conversion + the costs of an entirely new roof. If you'd be allowed to do this is another question. Most likely if there was precedent as I am sure you are aware. Might'n it be easier to do an loft extension over the outrigger if there is sufficient height with a dormer to install the stairs?

The new rules effectively preventing LAs setting up schools is entirely daft. The idea that you have to get parental support before securing a site (even if you have identified a potential site) is an unfortunate bi-product of the process. No one would realistically secure the site first. I'm not sure, but I believe Judith Kerr has gotten parental support for both the areas they are potentially looking to open in so whichever sight is chosen, it won't result in unwanted / empty places but I'm not sure where to find the exact statistics on this. Cross-posted with Chillaxed who I agree with

A survey seems like the best way forward. Most of the issues raised have solutions but we cannot tell if the solutions are financially viable / worthwhile investments. If we do the survey, we can gauge the need for the route and if the route would be self-funding which will allow everyone to figure out how much its worth spending addressing some of the other valid points raised. I'm not sure there is much more anyone can say about this until the survey is done.

The point about these schools is that only enough people to fill them need to want it (by formally registering their interest) for them to start the process of establishing themselves. This level of support already benefits the wider community as the families who send their children there won't be apply for the existing primary schools. This frees up places in the existing community schools that would otherwise be oversubscribed and need to bulge. There have been multiple postings about this school both in the General Ed section and the family room for many months so this is really nothing new.

How can you tell people to always take a taxi. In certain emergencies, it certainly will be much more important that paramedics come to the scene and start treatment en route in a blue light ambulance.

Rosie H, well clearly you don't like him anyway so the rest of what you said comes as no particular surprise...

Okay, understood and thanks for the information. It would be great if you can keep us updated on how the funding for the expansion of these 3 schools is coming along and the timeline.

Both, less politics please. It's still not clear to me if the new 2-form entry Harris Primary that has now received enough parental support is considered enough to deal with East Dulwich's and the surrounding areas' primary shortage. Will we still need bulges by 2016? Are we still planning to permanently expand surrounding schools-- Bessemer Grange, Dulwich Hamlet and Langbourne? I just want to understand what the plan is. I understand funding for the expansion program will be determined at the end of this month but is it fair to assume Renata, that you are pushing forward with this proposal? If the expansion of all 3 schools occurred, and Harris opened their primary on the proposed hospital site, would we still also need bulges or would the primary issue for this part of the borough be solved. Thinking about Camberwell / Nunhead / Peckham and East Dulwich as one large school area is important as issues in one area has knock on effects elsewhere. Thanks, LM

I think it would be wise to have this debate but without unfounded allegations parading as facts. Just because you are online, doesn't mean you don't have a responsibility to be factual in what you are saying.