LondonMix

Hoonalonna-- thanks for the update. The more this situation evolves, the clearer it becomes that when parents feel (wrongly or rightly) that something as important as their children?s education is at stake, it is hard for most people to rise above their personal self-interest. Admissions should absolutely not be determined by local consultation. Simple and fair rules should be implemented at a broader regional level by people with no personal stake in the outcome. The ?Big Society? is a nice idea but clearly doesn?t work in practice! Turns out, people are more Lord of the Flies in their approach? I think a lot of this is driven by fear as well. I?m sure most of the parents will be totally normal people once the dust settles. I?m going to post some information on school catchments that will hopefully make people feel better. The situation really isn?t that dire and all of the schools within a few miles of this area are really quite good. We are all very lucky.

GH-- was the SEN priority issue discussed at all?

Agreed

Yes, for Charter it was the application of the policy. Someone on the other thread said Northcross. As you can see nodal points can be very devisive. They are only to be used when there is no school a child is remote,y likely to get into. Harris E.D Boys and Girl are available to many in the east (if not all). Therefore, the threshold for a nodal point being used according to guidance isn't met. I hope that clearer but let eQually I may be missing your point!

I never said it won't be approved, but rather that it can be challenged (and there are successful precedents for this). The Charter themselves have had their old admission policy ruled unfair and they had to make changes to it. I believe Habs was threatened by Lewisham and made changes as well some time ago. There are a few things that are considered 'fair' by the government for different reasons that can distort how local a school is. 1. Banding to make the intake more comprehensive regarding ability. This is seen as fair as its deemed appropriate to spread academically capable pupils throughout the system and that it is of benefit to everyone. 2. Lotteries to increase the socio-economic diversity of a school. This is really designed to address richer parents effectively buying their spot into a successful school, creating educational ghettos. The Sutton Trust (a well regarded educational non-profit think tank) strongly advocates both banding and lotteries to make access to high quality education more equitable. However, there are many who believe schools should be entirely local and that is what most parents seem the prefer as people hate uncertainty. Two articles with different views: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-26354648 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/10656101/Surge-in-admissions-lotteries-threatens-childrens-right-to-place-at-local-school.html Personally, I agree with the Sutton trust but I think those policies only make sense if all schools adopt the same policy and if there are significant quality differences in schools that need to be remedied. In Southwark, virtually all the schools are very good and improving so its not necessary in my view. Distance is fine. simonethebeaver Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 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.

Okay, well, I disagree with those that have said that! The demand element of the application is in part to show the school is viable (i.e. it won't be undersubscribed). Undersubscribed schools are a waste of money and they also are under a lot of financial pressure and risk closing. This is really to prevent odd specialist schools opening that the community has no interest in with strange philosophies and specialisms no one wants. The other side of the demand that the DfE assesses is need. The need and shortage is in the south of the borough. To that extent, support for the format of the school should come from the south of the borough and a site in the south of the borough needed to be identified as part of the application process (if available). A site in the south of Southwark has been found fortunately! Also, support for the school has also been found in the south of Southwark (not just ED but really all over based on the heatmaps). Fortunately, this site actually sits in a place where it can serve the various communities that supported the application. Even if this wasn't the case though, the DfE guidance is that priority admission should still be for those closest to the school because if those pupils don't want to go (i.e. no demand) then those who supported the application, will get in anyway. Parents who support the application do not get any special priority for admission. The randomness of site allocation is in part what makes it fair. The selection of the site wasn't designed to give preference to any section of the community over another. If there is an actual black hole (supported by facts, not fear), then I think a nodal point should be placed there (not Northcross Road). At the beginning of this, I didn't object to a nodal point if you look at my posts. I asked repeatedly, where one should be and why. No one has provided a spot so far that is compliant with government guidance on fairness. If they can, then I will totally reverse my position.

And by the way, even if the socio-economic make up of the various areas were exactly the same, it would still be unfair (and against guidance given there are other schools that pupils can attend without a nodal point being implemented). That's not my primary objection to the nodal point, I was really just going through the full guidance for the sake of the discussion.

Simonthebeaver I have never said anyone wanting a nodal point is being a snob! I don't think that's true. I think that a nodal point is unfair personally and based on government guidelines and I think people who are advocating for it are putting themselves above what's fair for the general community, which is different (and a natural parental instinct). With that said, I do think parents prefer schools that are socio-economically balanced in their intake (I do too) and I think that's natural. I also think that the more balanced mix at Charter in Herne Hill is IN PART why its so popular compared to Harris Peckham which is close, co-ed, non-faith, and undersubscribed even though it gets better academic results for most of its students than the Charter does. I think as the mix there changes (which it will do once there is a shortage of places in 2018) it will become a more popular local choice. Kingsdale used to be seen in that way. Bessemer Grange to some extent as well though its becoming an ever more popular choice as its really an outstanding school.

Non-white is definitely NOT an indicator of deprivation automatically. A nodal point as part of an admissions arrangement cannot violate section 1.8 of the code as referenced above. Paragraph 1.8 of the Code says that ?Admission authorities must ensure that their arrangements will not disadvantage unfairly, either directly or indirectly, a child from a particular social or racial group.? The stats were to show the social, racial and economic make up of the different areas, that's all.

simonethebeaver Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 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. Very good, question. I've looked to see if that general assumption is true and it is. First, its worth explaining that the name of Wards do not correspond with the areas as we know them. For instance, Peckham Rye Ward actually covers the eastern part of East Dulwich and the western side of what we think of as Nunhead. The Lane Ward (for the census) actually covers the area north of East Dulwich Road that most of us would call Peckham Rye. South Camberwell Ward, covers the area just south and south west of the hospital site. At the links below you can see the ward maps to see which neighbourhoods the statistics cover. All of this information is from the ONS. The proposed nodal point would benefit Peckham Rye Ward (Nunhead and eastern part of East Dulwich). Some key stats are: * 35% Non white http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=7&b=6504807&c=Peckham+Rye&d=14&e=61&g=6336964&i=1001x1003x1032x1004&m=0&r=1&s=1434646997281&enc=1&dsFamilyId=2575 * 29% non-British http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=7&b=6504807&c=Peckham+Rye&d=14&e=61&g=6336964&i=1001x1003x1032x1004&o=362&m=0&r=1&s=1434647204688&enc=1&dsFamilyId=2525 * 48% of households without any deprivation indicators (the higher the better off you are) http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=7&b=6504807&c=Peckham+Rye&d=14&e=61&g=6336964&i=1001x1003x1032x1004&m=0&r=1&s=1434646997281&enc=1&dsFamilyId=2520 The proposed nodal point would potentially exclude pupils from South Camberwell Ward and Lane Ward (which covers the part of Peckham immediately south of East Dulwich Road) The key stats are: South Camberwell * 44% Non white http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=7&b=13689058&c=Camberwell&d=14&e=13&g=6337119&i=1001x1003x1004&o=362&m=0&r=1&s=1434649905546&enc=1&dsFamilyId=2477 * 36% non-British http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=7&b=13689058&c=Camberwell&d=14&e=61&g=6337119&i=1001x1003x1032x1004&o=362&m=0&r=1&s=1434649919436&enc=1&dsFamilyId=2525 * 46% of households without any deprivation indicators (the higher the better off you are) http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=7&b=13689058&c=Camberwell&d=14&e=10&g=6337119&i=1001x1003x1004&o=362&m=0&r=1&s=1434649900061&enc=1&dsFamilyId=2520 The Lane (i.e. Peckham) * 47% Non white http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=7&b=13689060&c=The+Lane&d=14&e=61&g=6337198&i=1001x1003x1032x1004&o=362&m=0&r=1&s=1434649169500&enc=1&dsFamilyId=2575 * 37% non-British http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=7&b=13689060&c=The+Lane&d=14&e=61&g=6337198&i=1001x1003x1032x1004&o=362&m=0&r=1&s=1434649169500&enc=1&dsFamilyId=2525 * 37% of households without any deprivation indicators (the higher the better off you are) http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=7&b=13689060&c=The+Lane&d=14&e=10&g=6337198&i=1001x1003x1004&o=362&m=0&r=1&s=1434649712186&enc=1&dsFamilyId=2520

Ms Maz, it doesn't work that way. A school's admission policy to be fair should serve the children nearest to it. A nodal point can be introduced nearby to serve pupils that have no other alternative and if it doesn't unduly impact certain social groups. The children closest to the actual physical location of the school don't lose the right to have priority attendance just because there are other schools nearby. Again, this isn't my opinion, its the official government guidance.

Where exactly do you think children don't have a chance of getting into any school. The lottery for Harris is only for part of the places. 1/3rd of the places are still offered on distance within 1km of the nodal point. That 1km radius covers most of South ED and East of Peckham Rye park.

There is no need to be rude or aggressive. The point was to understand what a fair policy would be so I am referencing official government guidance (rather than personal opinion) on what a fair admission policy entails. confusedbyitall Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Therefore, it would be hard for the Charter to > support a nodal point designed to serve those > areas if challenged by a case being brought to the > adjudicator, particularly in light of the impact > it would have on the social composition of the > school. > > > You really talk a load of noise! What does that > even mean? Please remember what this thread is > about....

hpsaucey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Being picky ' little or no priority access to > other schools.' as in the document is different to > your 'no access' to the ED Harris ones. This is a > very moot point for those with girls around Harris > Girls ED given the planned changes to admissions > there in Lewisham for example but then you've read > the thread..... (and I'm not in the category of > parent with a girl in that geographical area > before anyone asks). > > HP That's a fair comment. Little to no access is different from none. However, I don't believe little or no access exists anywhere in ED. The fact that every school has its own policy and Southwark (unlike Lewisham) fails to coordinate admissions is a large part of the problem. I think Harris?s ED's policy change is calculated? With that said, its admission is still priority distance for 1km from Cloyton Rd for one third of its intake. While not as good as pure distance, the distance radius does extend over Nunhead, as well as the Eastern and Southern areas within East Dulwich. Therefore, it would be hard for the Charter to support a nodal point designed to serve those areas if challenged by a case being brought to the adjudicator, particularly in light of the impact it would have on the social composition of the school.

No it does not mean that. I'll include the section on nodal points for completeness. As you'll see below, you can have nodal points but one of them always should be the actual school. More importantly, the justification for them is fairly constrained: 25.5. Nodal points (e.g. a geographic point in the school grounds and between one and 3 others in key catchments within the local community) may also be used as a form of catchment to ensure a school not only serves pupils close to the school but others slightly further away with little or no priority access to other schools. Care needs to be taken to ensure nodal points do not unfairly discriminate against particular social groups (paragraph 1.8 of the Code). Its pretty clear that one point has to be the school itself and that a nodal point can only be seen as fair if there is access to no other schools and the creation of it does not exclude any social group. While people may not like the Harris ED schools, saying there is no access to them for people living on Northcross Road (they only suggested nodal point so far) cannot be substantiated if challenged with the adjudicator. More importantly, a shift in the catchment further south from the school will clearly impact certain social groups disproportionately. The grounds for challenging the nodal points is clear in the government guidance on fair admissions.

While I understand the concern regarding overlap, it really does not matter because one child cannot attend two schools. Any theoretical overlap automatically extends the catchment area further east and west of both schools without the need for complex nodal point system trying to develop a strategy. I suggest those in favor of a nodal point read the government guidance on fair admission policies below: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/389813/Free_School_Admissions_Guidance.pdf Relevant extracts:   (page4) "It is worth setting out here that admission arrangements, while adopting criteria that appear to be Code compliant in themselves, could still be judged to be non-compliant with the Code by the Schools Adjudicator if, for instance they are: 10.1. setting a catchment that sought to exclude a local area could breach these provisions, especially if areas further away from the school were given priority;" Also see footnote 4 on page 5 of the official government guidance. "4 It is impossible to be comprehensive about this but arrangements that deliberately bypass children living next to the school or which target schools some distance away as feeders over those closer to the school are likely to be unfair. " As much as you want it, a consultation cannot result in an unfair policy being adopted. Parents closer to the school would have every right to take Charter to the adjudicator and have the admission arrangement overturned.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Have to wonder if the attacker was the father. > Either way he's scum of the highest order and I > hope.someone stamps on him very soon. The police have already indicated that it was not a random attack. The emotion involved in wanting to kill an unborn child requires a strong connection so its likely to be the father or someone who felt threatened by the pregnancy based on their relationship with the father or the mother.

It's horrifying but unfortunately not as as rare an event as we all hope it should be... In the early 2000s a study found the leading cause of death amongst pregnant women was murder (20% of all deaths for pregnant women in the US). It IS really appalling what pregnancy brings out in some people. http://www.webmd.com/baby/news/20010320/number-1-cause-of-death-in-pregnant-women-murder

Secondary schools are not for specific micro communities. If you read what Southwark published, the new school is designed to meet a shortage of spaces in the South of the borough ahead of the general shortage of spaces borough wide. The idea that some parents are basically only prepared to support the creation of a new community asset if they can ensure they get into it above and beyond other people in the community is a bit? crass. However you try to justify it, it is not fair. The fact that some local parents are more engaged and more vocal doesn?t mean they have the right to secure greater access to a public facility than would otherwise be the case. To be blunt, the fact that some people want to secure and advantage for themselves isn?t a justification for granting that demand. Public policy needs to be beyond certain people asserting what they want for themselves. That can't be the organising principle of a fair society.

That's not true though is it? The Charter bid which was always based on distance from the site (which was identified on Dulwich Hospital) had significantly more support than the Habs bid. Anyway, if the school's catchment is 1.5km it will cover the areas you mention without a nodal point but include more of ED and Nunhead and less of Peckham and Camberwell. The nodal point only changes the demographics in a significant way if the catchment is small. There is no actual reason for a nodal point except parents in East Dulwich and Nunhead want one which isn't justification for excluding children closer to the actual school from attending for the benefit of those further from it.

I think everyone wants the best for their kids and that?s normal and healthy. I do think the most popular schools are in part popular due to their socio economic make up but I don?t think that makes anyone who wants to go there a bad person. People want to send their children to a school that substantially (though of course not exclusively) reflects their own background and identity. If there was an American school in Dulwich, I would without hesitation opt for it, but that doesn?t make me a xenophobe (I hope). I think once some of the currently under-subscribed secondaries nearby have a more balanced socio-economic mix, they will become more popular. Parents always tend to be uncomfortable with schools that present extremes one way or the other (particularly if the extreme is different from themselves somehow).

The application has already been approved. The only thing being called in is the change they are proposing.

I want to clarify that I don?t think that Harris Peckham is a bad school! Despite all the hand-ringing on the Charter thread about not having any co-ed non-faith schools locally, Harris Peckham is co-ed and non-faith and is in Peckham Rye about a 1 mile as the crow flies from the Dulwich Hospital site. It is also one of the few undersubscribed schools in Southwark (meaning anyone could have gotten a place there as they didn?t fill all their places with first round offers). It?s a school with a lot of disadvantaged pupils and while it could be better (particularly in the teaching of English to High attainers) its hardly a sinkhole. Its academic results aren?t wildly different from the Charter?s and it significantly outperforms the Charter in math for all abilities and gets better results in math and English for its middle attainers and low attainers than the Charter school. Charter does better in English for high attainers, but overall both schools have a similar value add score. Harris Peckham: Receiving A-C in English and Math ? High Attainers: 86% ? Mid Attainers: 82% ? Low Attainers: 11% The Charter: Receiving A-C in English and Math ? High Attainers: 94% ? Mid Attainers: 59% ? Low Attainers: 5% Harris Peckham: Expected Progress in Math ? High Attainers: 100% ? Mid Attainers: 84% ? Low Attainers: 64% The Charter: Expected Progress in Math ? High Attainers: 79% ? Mid Attainers: 64% ? Low Attainers: 50% Harris Peckham: Expected Progress in English ? High Attainers: 57% ? Mid Attainers: 92% ? Low Attainers: 89% The Charter: Expected Progress in English ? High Attainers: 96% ? Mid Attainers: 81% ? Low Attainers: 68%

That?s what makes banding so tricky. The idea is to make sure that all schools have a comprehensive intake. Banding prevents parents with high attaining children taking all of the places within a popular successful school simply by living close to it. By ensuring the most popular schools will ideally only take its fair share of high attainers, it forces high attainers into less academically popular schools. The benefit is that the intake of these less popular schools becomes more comprehensive over time, equalizing the perception of all local schools. It?s a nice idea that aims to prevent the academic ghettoization of schools. The way Lewisham has traditionally worked it is the best ways?forcing all schools to participate. I?d be interested to learn why they are making the switch. In Southwark it works terribly because some schools are banded and others are not which means you get situations like this regarding the intake based on primary school results: The Charter in SE24 (Distance) ? 14% low attainers ? 43% middle attainers ? 43% high attainers ? 31% disadvantaged pupils Harris Academy Peckham (Bands) ? 29% low attainers ? 64% middle attainers ? 7% high attainers ? 64% disadvantaged pupils

I'm not saying that. I am just saying I don't object to more resi being developed. If the developer is trying to sneak out of the affordable housing req by splitting the resi in 2 applications that shouldn't be allowed. If they have decided to keep the office after looking into the conversion costs to resi but still incorporate some resi at the top floor, then I don't object. I'm not sure if all the resi in the first application helped it pass. If so, they should reassess the merits of the broader proposal.