LondonMix

Corrected! MsMaz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's Ms not Mrs...

And to add, I don't disagree that where you live is always the fairest way to determine access to schools. That's why the Sutton Trust advocates lotteries which gives everyone an equal chance of getting into any school. However, what you are proposing is a specific manipulation of the distance criteria not to give everyone an equal chance but to increase your child's specific chance of getting in. While every parent can understand that impulse, you have to see that can't be the basis of a community asset's access policy.

Yes of course still. The purpose of the new school isn't to spread Charter school places to East Dulwich. Its to create 240 new school places in the South of the borough to deal with a surge in demand starting next year. Under your argument, you could say we need to manipulate the intake of Habs Hatcham so children in SE22 can get in as we have a lack of Hatcham places available in SE22. Its bonkers. Admission policy isn't designed to create these kinds of outcomes. Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LondonMix Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > > Mrs Maz. What I find hard to understand then > is > > why the overlap is a problem. > > Really? Still?

How on earth would you prevent someone naming the new Charter as their first preference because they might be able to get the Charter in Redpost Hill? You are basically suggesting the two schools act as one school for admissions(with each physical school being a nodal point for admissions purposes) and then assign everyone to Redpost Hill thus eliminating anyone going to Charter ED who could get into Redpost Hill. The goal presumably would be to expand the catchment to the east and south of the hospital site. This would limit Charter Redpost Hill's catchment from expanding to the west as well (or really at all). Besides being logistically complicated, this consultation can't change the admissions policy of an existing school. Also, they are two separate schools and you can't combine them this way or force children who want to attend the ED school to attend the Redpost Hill school. This proposal would also almost certainly been seen as an illegal manipulation of intake as it serves no legitimate purpose except to increase certain parents chances of getting in. The Admissions Code doesn't recognise a shortage of 'Charter Schools' as a legitimate reason to diverge so radically from normal guidelines on fair admissions. I'm so happy someone in government had the foresight to ensure that the Admission Code would apply to free schools. If it was entirely consultation based the results would be bonkers. Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > MsMaz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I think your points 1 and 2 to stop overlapping > > catchment (which is massive) and thus > maintaining > > the existing Charter 1 catchment, is an > excellent > > proposal. And is much better than fighting > about > > nodal points - as that way, everyone who is on > the > > borders or beyond of potential catchments and > > fighting on this forum would actually be much > more > > likely to get in (wherever the nodal point) as > it > > would stretch the catchment further north, east > > and south. > > > > Well let's hope the Charter team can see the > merits of this. thx.

Agree Bob. Ms Maz. What I find hard to understand then is why the overlap is a problem. The new school, will create 240 new places in the south of Southwark where the need is. It is well positioned to do so. The need isn't greater in any particular part of the south of the borough. Therefore, as long as 240 students attend, it will be fulling its purpose. The new school will create enough school places that other local school catchments should not shrink dramatically ensuring more children continue to have the opportunity to attend a secondary school within a relatively short commuting time of their home. Your and MicMac's statements seem to suggest you think the school was designed to solve a lack of Charter School places rather than deal with an increase in demand for secondary school places more generally. The idea isn't to spread Charter school places around the borough evenly-- and a second nodal point in SE22 wouldn't really spread it evenly anyway but rather prioritise access for this postcode. As long as the school is full, its fulling its purpose and mandate.

I think people are talking at cross purposes. MicMac and MsMaz both seem to have the underlying assumption that this school was created for the postal area SE22 or the political ward of East Dulwich. What makes you think that is or should be the aim of the school's intake? Honest question. I've scanned through the material from Charter and their description has always been more or less "The Charter School East Dulwich will be a co-educational, non-selective, non-faith, inclusive 11-18 secondary school, delivering the highest quality education for young people in its immediate diverse locality where there is a shortage of secondary school places from 2016 onwards." From the Charter website. ETA: Until that underlying assumption is clarified, I think trying to understand the rest of suggestions is impossible.

There are a number of factual errors that I am responding to primarily to prevent misinformation from spreading. My responses are in CAPS (I'm not shouting though!) Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have responded to the consultation as below: (I > don't think the nodal point will help those east > of LL, who really do need a school for girls at > least. THERE IS NO SHORTAGE OF GIRLS SCHOOL PLACES IN THE EAST OR THE SOUTH OF SE22. HARRIS ED GIRLS IS STILL BASED ON DISTANCE FOR 1KM NEAR THE SCHOOL. SYDENHAM GIRLS SCHOOL FURTHEST DISTANCE OFFER WAS BETWEEN 3,392- 6,453 FOR THE BAND WITH THE SHORTEST AND LONGEST DISTANCE(Girls / postcode SE26 4RD). THIS SCHOOL IS ACTUALLY CLOSER TO MANY OF THOSE LIVING IN THE SOUTH OF ED THAN THE HOSPITAL SITE. THERE ARE ALSO MANY CO-ED OPTIONS IN SOUTHWARK AND LEWISHAM BASED ON DISTANCE OFFERS LAST YEAR. THERE IS NO ARGUMENT THAT EVEN THE SHORTEST DISTANCE BAND IN SYDENHAM GIRLS WOULD COVER ALL OF THE SOUTH OF ED. Whilst others now have two Charter schools > to choose from is rather unfair or missing the > point of anew school...) THE POINT OF THE NEW SCHOOL IS TO DEAL WITH A SURGE IN DEMAND FOR PLACES IN THE SOUTH OF THE BOROUGH FROM 2016. THE SCHOOL SITE IS WELL LOCATED TO SERVE THE SOUTH OF THE BOROUGH. IT IS ALSO ACCESSIBLE TO THE AREAS THAT SUPPORTED THE CAMPAIGN. > > "I do not support the chosen nodal point in Jarvis > Road, being too far north of the central SE22 > area. The area south east of Lordship Lane, > (southern end of Friern Road etc) which suffers > from a lack of girls secondary school availability > (1km to Harris Girls) and is an area that > campaigned hard for a new school is not served > well by this nodal point. However there is now a > duplication of Charter school opportunity > elsewhere. > THERE IS NO SHORTAGE OF GIRLS PLACES IN THE SOUTH OF SE22. SIGNING UP TO THE CAMPAIGN CONFERS NO RIGHT FOR PRIORITY ADMISSION TO THE SCHOOL LEGALLY (NOR IN MY OPINION MORALLY). THOSE WHO WEREN'T ASKED OR AREN'T SOCIALLY ENGAGED BUT WHOSE CHILDREN LIVE CLOSER TO THE SCHOOL STILL HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO ATTEND IF THEY WANT TO AHEAD OF THOSE FURTHER AWAY BASED ON THE ADMISSIONS CODE WHICH IS WHAT APPLIES TO ALL SCHOOLS. > We, as a family, are currently outside of the > catchment for Charter 1 and based upon the Jarvis > Road nodal point, are now likely to be outside the > catchment for Charter 2 also, while others now > have a choice of two Charter schools ! > > When I spoke about this duplication at one of the > open evenings the panel failed to accept the point > - the panel response was that another school can > only result in more school places for East > Dulwich. > > Then please consider this example; > > 10 children living near Charter 1 (who would have > gotten into Charter 1 previously anyway), but are > closer to Charter 2, are each offered a place at > both schools. > The children choose the nearer school, being > Charter 2, this obviously frees up 10 places at > Charter 1 (not Charter 2...) > Hence the catchment of Charter 1 is expanded by 10 > places, but on all sides from its nodal point, to > benefit Herne Hill, Dulwich Village, North > Dulwich, Denmark Hill etc, and East Dulwich - > hence in the case of people in both Charter > catchments areas, the other areas surrounding > Charter 1 have actually also benefitted from these > 10 Charter 2 places and ED as a result only > benefits marginally. THE PANEL IS CORRECT. ITS VERY HARD TO EXPLAIN THE MATH IN WORDS. THE BEST WAY I CAN THINK OF TO EXPLAIN IT IS TO IMAGINE YOU HAD A SCHOOL AND CHILDREN WERE STOOD IN QUEUE WITH 250 TO LEFT OF THE SCHOOL AND 250 TO THE RIGHT OF THE SCHOOL EACH 1 FOOT APART. THE SCHOOL (SCHOOL 1) HAS 200 PLACES SO ITS CATCHMENT IS 200FT DIAMETER / 100FOOT RADIUS AND THERE ARE 150 CHILDREN TO THE RIGHT AND 150 TO THE LEFT WITH NO PLACE. NOW IMAGINE A NEW SCHOOL (SCHOOL 2) WITH 200 PLACES WAS BUILT IN THE RIGHT QUEUE ADJACENT TO CHILD 100 ON THE RIGHT. NOW, ALL THE 100 CHILDREN BETWEEN THE TWO SCHOOLS GET INTO ONE OR THE OTHER (LETS SAY IN EQUAL NUMBERS), SO 50 PLACES IN EACH SCHOOL BUT WITH A 100 FOOT OFFER RADIUS. SCHOOL 1 CAN STILL OFFER 150 PLACES TO ITS LEFT AND SCHOOL 2 CAN OFFER 150 PLACES TO ITS RIGHT. THE OVERLAP EXPANDS THE CATCHMENT OF BOTH SCHOOLS OUT SO THAT 400 CHILDREN IN A STRAIGHT LINE WITHOUT ANY GAPS GET IN, MOSTLY TO THE RIGHT OF SCHOOL 2 AND THE LEFT OF SCHOOL 1. THIS IS AN AUTOMATIC EAST WEST ADJUSTMENT OF THE OVERLAP. SOMEONE MIGHT ARGUE THAT THE REMAINING 150 PLACES WILL IN PART BE OFFERED ON BOTH SIDES OF EITHER SCHOOL. IT DOESN'T MATTER. THE OFFERS WILL STILL EXPAND PROPORTIONALLY TO RIGHT AND LEFT UNTIL ALL 400 PLACES ARE OFFERED IN A STRAIGHT LINE (IF THAT'S UNCLEAR I CAN TRY TO EXPLAIN WHY). > My proposal is that either > 1) The Charter 2 school and the Charter 1 school > have separately defined and non-overlapping > catchment areas, or > 2) a child within the catchment for Charter 1 is > required to accept the offer at Charter 1 and free > the place at Charter 2 for those in SE22 who > previously did not have access to a Charter school > - hence the school then serves the purpose of > enhancing school places in East Dulwich and not > Herne Hill etc which are already well catered for > by Charter 1, or FIRST, NO CHILD CAN ACCEPT A PLACE AT TWO SCHOOLS SO THIS HAPPENS AUTOMATICALLY AS PER MY EXAMPLE OF ABOVE WITHOUT ANY SPECIFIC POLICY REMEDY. > 3) the nodal point is moved to central se22 where > it would be most beneficial, irrespective of where > the school grounds actually are, with some > accommodation made to the needs of Camberwell also > which I think was mentioned as having an equal > need to central East Dulwich." A NODAL POINT CANNOT BE LEGALLY JUSTIFIED UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES AND FOR THIS REASON. THE GUIDANCE IS CLEAR THAT CHILDREN FURTHER AWAY FROM A SCHOOL SHOULD NOT GET PRIORITY AHEAD OF THOSE CLOSER TO IT (EXCEPT WITH BANDING AND LOTTERIES). NODAL POINTS CAN ONLY BE INTRODUCED WHEN CHILDREN HAVE LITTLE OR NO PRIORITY ACCESS TO ANY OTHER SCHOOL. THAT SIMPLY IS NOT THE CASE IN THE SOUTH OF ED. NOT LIKING YOUR OPTION(S) IS NOT THE SAME AS NOT HAVING ANY.

Also, if the debate has moved on to if the distance should be measured from either the centre of the school building or Jarvis Road, I'm surprised there is still so much strong feeling. The difference must be less than 100 yards...

I don't think we disagree. The Adjudicator is concerned about the number of non-compliant schools (not always concerning admission policy per se but other elements of the Admission Code that aren't adhered to) and in the most recent published annual report said that the organisation is concerned it was only seeing a small portion of the infractions. That too many schools don't follow the laws in the first place is a problem but at least there is a higher authority that will force schools to adhere. More direct oversight is needed and Southwark could perform this role via an Admissions Forum similar to Lewisham. While councils are no longer legally obliged to have one they still can and the Adjudicator's annual report suggests they do make a difference.

I agree. The good news is the government has changed the process so it is much easier and one can go directly to the Adjudicator. You don't even need to be parent or be directly impacted to bring the issue to the Adjudicator's attention. Personally I think Southwark is terrible. They could be doing a lot more and a lot better. Lewisham is a great example of how a well run LA can still coordinate and influence admissions in its borough.

Consultation about the admissions policy is really about deciding between at times conflicting aims such as making intake academically comprehensive, ensuring access for all regardless of socio-economics, SEN priority etc. etc. There are a few recognised admissions policies with different aims that are fair and the consultation should try to understand what the community prioritises as concerns these aims. Lottery, banding, SEN priority, siblings etc. However, the admission consultation process is NOT a vote to see who get in. I hope people realise that lots of support for creating a nodal point offsite in the South or East of SE22 / Nunhead is by no means any justification in and of itself for granting one. Regardless of the outcome of the consultation, Charter is legally bound to follow the Admission Code and the supporting published guidance. These rules apply to ALL state funded schools including free schools / academies.

I agree its missing. It might be the right niche. The thing is, the last time I went to the Cherry Tree (under the lure of new management) a couple of years ago, it was to watch football there. EDT was too full. It was okay and somewhat busy. Service was terrible as usual though. Friends staying with us went to watch the football at the Plough recently and I'm sure my husband has dragged me to the Actress to watch sport. I've watched the Rugby in the Bishop in the not too distant past as well. Unless things have changed recently, there is some sport offering outside of the EDT. Not sure how much more demand there is as the other places are never heaving when they have sport on. The EDT might already fully occupy that niche.

Also, I think Bacon's is a lottery. They have an inner and outer catchment. They have bands but allocation within each band is random allocation just like Harris. Once you are inside the inner catchment, it doesn't matter where you live. Bacon is basically adopting a banded lottery within a fairly large inner catchment as does Harris Crystal Palace. The lottery section of Harris ED will also be in ability bands. ETA: I am not against banded lotteries but I'm not sure how effective they are when they aren't utilised very broadly across a significant area. When individual schools do it ad hoc, it feels like it will be less effective and create distortions.

I don't know what that was based on so I can't say. Harris were initially pushing for 100% lottery and the outcome of the consultation was to keep a distance component with the nodal point you describe. It might have something to do with the co-ed 6th form shared between the two schools- so picking a point between them has some rationale. There might be arguments in that situation that could make sense but I don't know what parents argued for or what Harris explained during that consultation. I think Renata was involved so I'm sure she can shed some more light.

That's fair enough. I guess the question is if there are enough people who want to watch sport in a pub regularly. For the large events, most pubs will have a screen out.

There will be distance based admission within 1 km of the ED Harris Girls and outside of that it will be a lottery. There are also other girl schools that serve the South of ED. I don't think distance is the only thing that's fair and neither does the Admission Code. A lottery is fair as it means no one can simply buy a place in a good school by moving next door to it- everyone has an equal shot at any school. Banding is fair as it furthers the aim of making education more comprehensive. A combination of these things all can and serve a broader social goal. What would not be fair is if certain vocal and engaged people could advocate to get special access to a school. Admissions arrangements cannot be determined by which group of parents organise themselves best. That would clearly have access to the best schools dominated by the most organised and socially engaged (typically middle class) parents which isn't fair to children whose parents can't or don't do the same. It would also be impossibly divisive. Personally, I think all admissions should be a ability banded lottery coordinated at borough level. That way, access to education would be genuinely fair for all and people wouldn't be able to move into a postcode with good schools and completely disengage from what was happening elsewhere in the city. However, London schools are doing well enough without such extreme measures and so I think distance is fine and most people prefer the greater certainty it offers. rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thanks LondonMix. It seems to me logical that the > admissions would be based on distance from the > school and the desire to limit the amount of > 'overlap' between the two Charter Schools makes > sense. > > It's a shame that there isn't more easily > accessible info on secondary catchments and more > co-ordination / standardisation of admission > policies. As I understand it Harris girls are > looking to move to a lottery, which could have an > impact in the south of ED. > > LondonMix Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Based on the furthest distance offered last > year, > > there is no secondary school blackhole anywhere > > under discussion. > > > > People in Nunhead, the Eastside of East Dulwich > > and the South of East Dulwich have multiple > > schools (a few of which are closer to them than > > the actual hospital site) that they can get > into > > both in Southwark and across the border in > > Lewisham. I posted the catchments in an > earlier > > post. > > > > There is a shortage of Charter School places of > > course, but that's not the same thing! > > > > This situation absolutely does not meet the > > threshold for creating nodal points based on > > government guidance to Free Schools on fair > > admissions policies. There needs to be limited > to > > no access to any school and with Harris ED > Girls > > and Boys that can't be argued even without all > the > > other schools that children can attend nearby > (of > > which there are both co-ed and non-co-ed > > options). > > > > > > > > > > rahrahrah Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Is there a simple map anywhere which shows > > > (roughly) the catchment areas for secondaries > > in > > > Duwlich and environs? It's very difficult to > > have > > > a sensible, informed debate about where the > > right > > > place for a 'nodal point' is, without a clear > > > understanding of where the often discussed > > 'black > > > holes' in provision really are.

Harris Crystal Palace allocate 90% of their places within a 2 mile radius of the school via lottery. The remaining 10% are a lottery beyond 2 miles. I suggested a zoned lottery on the other thread but no one seemed to like the idea. Parents don't want an equal chance of getting in. They want to get in, which is understandable. I agree that demand is the most important criteria for the free school system. We can agree to disagree about the rationale though they were definitely part of the Big Society program. If challenged by a parent or Southwark via the Adjudicator, I think the nodal point would be reversed. The Adjudicator does actually rule against schools and in this case the situation would be fairly black and white. Besides the 'legality' of it though, I think the Admissions code is right. You can't have certain vocal groups arguing for greater access to schools believed to be better. Its clearly an unfair way to set admissions policy and is naturally divisive.

Based on the furthest distance offered last year, there is no secondary school blackhole anywhere under discussion. People in Nunhead, the Eastside of East Dulwich and the South of East Dulwich have multiple schools (a few of which are closer to them than the actual hospital site) that they can get into both in Southwark and across the border in Lewisham. I posted the catchments in an earlier post. There is a shortage of Charter School places of course, but that's not the same thing! This situation absolutely does not meet the threshold for creating nodal points based on government guidance to Free Schools on fair admissions policies. There needs to be limited to no access to any school and with Harris ED Girls and Boys that can't be argued even without all the other schools that children can attend nearby (of which there are both co-ed and non-co-ed options). rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is there a simple map anywhere which shows > (roughly) the catchment areas for secondaries in > Duwlich and environs? It's very difficult to have > a sensible, informed debate about where the right > place for a 'nodal point' is, without a clear > understanding of where the often discussed 'black > holes' in provision really are.

I agree with much of that to be honest with you but am trying not be provocative :) The free school program was part of the Big Society idea. Basically, the idea was that parents know what schools should be offering-- specialisms in the art, particular ethos / philosophies etc better than the LA. Turns out at least around here people don't want anything fancy. One of the key criteria along side which free schools are assessed is if there is a need for one and support for one. 15 free school applications have been cancelled because a suitable site couldn't be found so I don't think the site location doesn't matter. Having some idea of which site you could use is part of the initial application process. The real point is that the Dulwich Hospital site is a perfect site. If only the people who signed the petition wanted to attend, its within reasonable commuting distance for secondary school. That the community anticipate lots of people want to attend is even better. The schools won't be undersubscribed and its in an areas of identified need. intexasatthe moment Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > " The confusion seems to be that some parents feel > that by signing up to the campaign they were > guaranteeing themselves admission " > > I find it hard to believe that people are really > that ill informed . I don't think it's confusion > or misleading advice ,I think it's the desire to > get one's child into a " good " school and the > perception of what a good school is . > > But having said that a system where the area/s of > demand is one thing and the location of the school > another is always going to lead to a debate about > the oversubscrition admissions policy . > > Not really relevant here but I don't think I do > remember Free Schools being set up to be > innovative and experimental . Freedom from > following the national curriculum ,changing term > times ,setting salary rates and so on was already > enjoyed by Academies . I thought the " rationale " > was to give parents the freedom to set up schools > where they were unhappy with the existing offer > ,to give " choice " where parents thought they had > none .To drive up standards by introducing > competition . All that illusory ,expensive > ,divisive ,chaos making guff .

Evidenced demand is required to show the school is viable, not to create priority admission to the school for those that signed the campaign. Southwark already defined where the need is which is the South of Southwark. This need of course also needs to be stated as part of the application to show the school is req and won't undermine the financial viability of existing schools. These criterion exist to prevent schools opening where there are no expected shortages of places offering specialisms and philosophies no one is interested in. Remember the initial idea was that Free schools would be innovative and experimental. The confusion seems to be that some parents feel that by signing up to the campaign they were guaranteeing themselves admission. That is not how the system works and if anyone from either school led them to believe otherwise, that was really inappropriate. My guess is it was probably a misunderstanding though rather than the Charter intentionally misleading people as their posts on the forum were pretty clear.

I've signed the petition-- thanks for organising!

I'm curious what Charter told parents. Every thread from the Charter I personally saw always said it would be straight line admission from the school as did their documents. Did individual campaigners intentionally mislead some parents?

According to the update posted on the other thread it was 1,121m this year and just over 1,500m last year. http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?29,1518231,page=4

And to add to Bornagain's earlier point, Harris Peckham is already good academically without middle class support. The majority of the pupils do very well there particularly in math! Better than the Charter in fact... It's not a sink school by any stretch of the imagination.

The most recent offers for the schools near the Southwark border are below. As Lewisham has historically banded, I?ve included the longest and shortest distance of bands of each school. Now that they are distance only, the furthest distance offer, should be somewhere in between these extremes. As you?ll see, if you live in East Dulwich or Nunhead, you have a very strong chance of getting into a number of these schools. This is of course in addition to the Harris Girls and Boys ED, Harris Peckham, the New Charter, and the Kingsdale. ? Deptford Green School- 3,391-5,402m (CO-ED / postcode SE14 6AN) ? Forest Hill School- 2,611-6,523m (Boys / postcode SE23 2XN) ? Prendergast Hilly Fields College 1,085-1,632m (Girls / postcode SE4 1LE) ? Prendergast Ladywell Fields College 3,844-7,314 (CO-ED / postcode SE4 1SA) ? Prendergast Vale College 952-2,975 (CO-ED / postcode SE13 7BN) ? Sydenham School 3,392- 6,453 (Girls / postcode SE26 4RD)