LondonMix

I sympathise and understand not feeling stressed while being very stressed in reality. Two things helped me the most: 1 i never used to talk about my problems(little things even). Learning to share more with my friends and husband even if it is trivial was a huge relief. 2. Exercise. I am totally i. Favour of medication and therapy but nothing impacts my personal sense of well being as quickly as regular exercise. Even when I don't realise I am stressed I immediately feel the difference. It burns off the adrenaline... Good luck!

You definitely don't owe her for days off and her insisting you care for her dog if you have expressed that you are uncomfortable is out if order. Her calling you in while you were sick is outrageous especially as she had an alternative and suggests she's deeply narcissistic. Find a new employer!

I don't really think it's that complicated. Look at this image: Every princess / heroine has a tiny waist and big boobs etc. Irrespective of where they are from or the personality Disney gives them, it clear that to be a female heroine the characteristic you MUST have is a hot body. Why is this necessary or desirable? If you look at older drawings of Snow White she was much less sexualised so this is an increasingly modern trend. It reinforces a world view where to be a special girl, the baseline criteria is your body.

Yes, add in a 10 percent contingency and cost of doing up the garden to Motorbird's post and you are quickly pushing 100k.

Sorry, but if you are going to come on to a public forum to slag off an organisation you should at least be paying attention to how the situation is evolving.

RecorderSue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Planning permission stage for ED has passed so we > should be getting a 3 cinema Picture House in > Lordship lane. Just think , instead of driving to > Peckham or Brixton we will be able to walk to the > local cinema.! I just wish and hope they'll pay > all their employees a decent living wage. If you really cared about what was going on you'd have known an agreement had already been reached

I get where you are coming from Saffron?I used to have a body like that (now add 5 kilos :O) Being physically attractive, dressing in an overtly feminine or sexy way, liking beauty and taking care of yourself in no way undermines any woman?s credibility as a feminist / intelligent woman. However, if every character / role model presented by the media looks like a curvy bombshell (regardless of the backstory), its sending a pretty clear message that is the most important attribute in a woman to be admired. The image isn?t inclusive and it clearly sets up a moral hierarchy with looks at the top. I think even glamorous sexy feminists can agree that isn?t a healthy message for young girls.

Thanks James. Can you confirm the date the secondary school application could be approved if its submitted in October? Can you also please confirm the date the NHS intendds to sell the site? If they are already having conversations with residential developers, have they announced a date for formal bids?

James, how confident are you the land cannot be acquired by the EFA before the application for either secondary school (Habs or Charter) has gone through the full approval process? I remember the application itself is due in October but how long is the approval process and has the NHS released any official statement on their timeline for disposing of the land?

How has the EFA been made aware of a pending need for the hospital site for a secondary school? As is, they only application they have is the Harris Nunhead application. Is there someone within the EFA that the parent group can officially speak to just to make them aware of the pending applications that both will need the site as a priority? Again, the risk that the site is acquired by the EFA for the Harris Nunhead site ahead of either of the secondary school applications being formally submitted and approved is somethign I think needs to be mitigated as a matter of urgency.

Agree

Their published admissions policy on their website for 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 is still safest walking distance. Charter has changed how the safest walking distance is calcuated for their existing school though. It used to exclude a walking path used by children in Dog Kennel Hill estate. The effect of excluding the path (which was used) was the walking distance calculation for applicants living there was longer than reality and reduced the likelihood they would get in. The Ombudsman, after local parents mounted a campaign, forced Charter to acknowledge the walking path in its distance calculation. I imagine that?s what they were referring to. I believe Charter is planning to use distance as the crow flies as its admission policy for the new school if their bid is successful.

Safe walking distance means that the last distance offer doesn't go East of Lordship Lane for most of ED but the further south you go it can extend out as far east as Crystal Palace Road. That green dot is way to big.

Really? They always seem busy when I go in. Where exactly did you hear this?

Exactly-- no indie has been taken over by a chain. And there are really very few large chains. Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But neither Foxtons or Picture House took over > their site from independent shops. Franco Manca is > taking over the site from another small chain. I > get the point of course, but nevertheless, the > prediction of "indies squeezed out by chains" has > not really materialised yet to any significant > extent.

I agree-- that's also why I think they are pushing so hard to open a 2nd primary school in ED. I personally think they want to have some schools in affluent areas that statistically are likely to do well with less effort. Renata has suggested to Harris on this forum that they open a primary school in the (poorer) northern part of the borough where there is actually a real need / still an existing shortfall. Somehow they find that less pressing / compelling case than opening up a school for Nunhead in East Dulwich which already as a 2.5 form surplus by 2016... ETA: With that said, I do think they are a good school provider and do well for low attainers in their schools. ED Harris Girls has 22% low attainers and those low attainers do better there than they do at our other local secondaries. Middle and high attainers do as well as at ED Harris as at our other local secondaries like the Charter.

When did that happen? Wasn't that quite a few years ago? Also, Adventure Bar is tacky but its hardly a big chain. There are only 3 of them in the entire UK.

Pendergrast is the only other school in Lewisham that do a different banding system so both schools come in with very low proportion of low-attainers. That's worrying. Habs Knight seems to be around average (nationally and with Lewisham) despite having the same admission policy as Hatcham though which is strange. It seems to suggest that its parents failing to apply rather than the application process per se that's causing the intake to skew. This phenomena of self-exclusion from academically sucessful schools by low-attaining families is something the Sutton Trust highlighted as an unexpected issue with fair banding achieving a comprehensive intake.

Hi Fischia-I should have been clearer. I wasn't comparing Hatcham's intake to Charter but rather to its local secondary schools in Lewisham (which is what would make most sense in assessing if its admission policy was skewing intake vs its local area). I'm not sure that's true but I think someone else on the Habs thread after looking at their bands came to that conclusion.

What other chain has popped up? I can't think of any indie that has been replaced by a chain in years. Emily00 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Japanese would be a good addition to the mix, but > a wagamamas?! There are so many chains cropping up > now.

Espelli- I agree 100% with what you have said. The testing and application procedures (particularly when multiple tests need to be sat) have also been seen as a risk factor for discouraging lower-ability and lower income students from applying. However, the feeling that high achieving school?s ?were not for them? was another factor identified in a recent report by the Sutton Trust (I?ve linked to it previously). Not every school that runs its own tests has a high-achieving skewed intake?from memory I actually think Hatcham slightly skews towards lower ability students?but it?s a risk worth eliminating. I strongly advocate one test in primary school used across an LA for this reason. Where certain schools in an LA are skewing heavily, the Admission Forum should use its statutory powers to ensure multiple-school or LA wide banding to ensure an equitable intake. There is a reason checks and balances have been put into the system.

In Lewisham they are mostly academies and have managed it. The Admission Forum has a lot more power than you suggest. Adhering to their recommendations is not option under the new code if there is good reason to make policy changes. Does Southwark LA still have an Admissions Forum to help guide and coordinate policy accross the borough?

I?m not sure its on purpose. When people devised fair-banding, think tanks thought it would really lead to more comprehensive schools. It never occurred to them that less able students (and their parents) would actively not apply to high achieving schools. Fair banding only skews to high-achievers if low achievers don?t apply! I think this is a unique cultural issue in the UK that needs to be addressed at a more fundamental level. Anyhow, now that schools recognize that lower achieving pupils actively shy away from high achieving schools relative to their high achieving peers, the system needs to be tweaked to reflect this surprising ?self-exclusion? done by low achieving families.

Yeah, it can be hard to understand and schools don't do a good job of explaining it. This article is helpful. http://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-fair-banding-for-secondary-schools-23661 The best way for banding to create a comprehensive intake is when schools band together (ie. use fairbanding but looking at applicants not just to their school but in all of the local schools or even the entire LA). This creates the most comprehensive intake within a local area and prevents the type of skewing described above. Ideally, I would like to see the new Habs ED Secondary design its bands in coordination with the other local schools serving the community: Harris ED Girls, Harris ED Boys, and Kingsdale so they all use the same bands / test. Preferably a single test that could be taken in the local primaries would be the basis as well but I'm not sure Southwark Admission Forum are active enough to bring something like that into practice. One of the main goals of banding is to create a comprehensive intake so any school that has banding should want to coordinate with other secondary schools to make the policy more effective.

The statistics Fuschia's report make mention of (if true) would indicate, Harris's previous success has created a situation in which all of the local high achieving students want to go there. All of them put it as their first choice and then the banding proportionally skews towards high achievers. This is the big risk of ?fair banding?