LondonMix

Also does anyone involved with the steering committee know why Hatcham uses 'fair banding'? It seems an odd choice when the other schools use local banding so I'm curious what the rationale is and if they have a preference for how admissions would work at the proposed new school. Also, were any specifics discussed regarding facilities and is there scope for sharing grounds with the private schools? I believe sharing helps the local private schools fulfil their charitable requirements. Is that right?

ITATM- I realise you posted some additional questions regarding Lewisham and disagree with some of my comments on Southwark. I hope the below provides some clarification for you (or for others) The code in 2006 said there had to be one test in an area when banding is used as you have quoted. However, the updated code in 2010 changed this to 'should' (so no longer mandatory) and the most recent update in 2012 removed reference to a preference for a single test all together. Given it is not mandatory, neither Hatcham nor Lewisham's admission forum are I n breach of the current code by allowing the Hatcham non verbal reasoning test. http://www3.hants.gov.uk/schools_admission_code.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/275598/school_admissions_code_1_february_2012.pdf Regarding reference to Southwark LA: In the documents posted above you can see that the LA has a statutory obligation to refer breaches of the code to the Adjudicator for schools in its Authority that operate their own admission authorities (like Charter)-see clause 3.2 in the 2012 code but similar clauses have existed in the 2010 and 2006 versions. The parents who took part in the efforts to change Charter's admission have come out and said publicly that neither Southwark LA nor Southwark Admission Forum would refer the matter to the Adjudicator. Hence my comment about them not being hapless victims. The LA's role comes in addition to the role and responsibilities of the Admission Forum. Given the legal responsibility of Southwark LA to report these types of issues to the Adjudicator the fact that they did nothing when made aware of the issue to me is institutional failure as they were vested with the power and responsibility to affect change. I hope this is because it was the LA's own policy for years and they were therefore reluctant to be critical rather than evidence of a deeper incompetence within the LA. Having read a bit last night it seems that Gove recently removed the requirement for Admission Forums. Many areas still have them (like Lewisham) but in their absence 100 percent of the legal responsibility to report breaches now sits with the LA when no Forum exists. Does anyone know what the current state of Southwark's forum is?

I thought you meant my recent post not the one from several days ago. You already responded and I haven't asked you anything else since then hence my confusion. We both have also engaged with other posters in between.

I'm not hostile at all and there is no need to PM me. I actually agree with you that the Southwark forum failed in the case of Charter both while the school was an LA maintained school and in its current form as an academy. I also didn't ask you any questions- I just posted links with the information you asked for- so not sure what individual queries you are referring to?

Interesting. Did both schools discuss how they would provide supporting facilities? If so, it would be very interesting to hear from the steering committee what was discussed for sports and the performing arts as well as academics facilities. It would be great if the Charter could create a complementary set of facilities to their existing school that could be shared by all students at both schools.

Ultimately the Secretary of State which takes advice from the Office of the Schools Adjudicator has the ability to enforce agreed arrangements. The Office of the Schools Adjudicator is the body that holds up appeals made against both LA maintained schools as well as Academies though the Local Government Ombudsman also has jurisdiction of maladministration of stated government policies when LA schools are involved. For Academies, the OSA makes a formal recommendation to the Secretary of State who is vested with the final decision following their analysis and recommendation. As you can read in the official document below, the Southwark LA actually formally supported Charter?s policy (they went as far as providing written support for the school during the appeals process). Charter was not a case of a hapless LA not being able to influence or change policy they didn?t like?they were supportive of Charter?s position. Their support is hardly suprising given that the policy has been in place since the school first opened as an LA school in 2000 and was in fact LA policy maintained by the school post conversion in 2010. The first appeals from parents regarding the policy date back to when it was still being run by the LA... https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B9GB1PQuo9iAODYyYzZiMWEtYzEzYS00Y2U3LWE4M2MtNTJiMzhiNjc5YzZl/edit?usp=drive_web&pli=1 The School Admission Forum (which is independent of the LA) reviews policies set by both LAs and Academies to ensure fairness and equity. When it disagrees with a policy (i.e. believes it contravenes the national code) it can refer the matter to the Office of the Schools Adjudicator mentioned above for both LA schools and academies. Southwark (in fact all authorities) have to have forums by law as they are statutory oversight bodies. If you are genuinely interested in the coordination requirements and the role of various bodies, the document below provides a detailed overview. Academies (as part of their funding arrangements) ?must? regard advice provided by their Admission Forum. https://www.education.gov.uk/consultations/downloadableDocs/6757-SchoolAdmissionsCode.pdf Edited for lots of typos and for clarity!

Besides making a general point that you don't like the free school / academy system (which we know is your position), what exactly are you trying to add to this discussion about a new school in the area and the choice between Charter and Hatcham? Hatcham have coordinated with Lewisham in setting its admission policy while maintaining the music scholarship program. Do you think this means they aren't inclusive, are a poor choice for this area?

Sampit, that is totally the case. The school can propose a different admissions policy reflecting parents wishes but the Department for Education have to approve it under all circumstances. The DfE requires free school?s to have an admissions policy that adheres to the admissions code and therefore, whatever specific strategy is employed (distance only, lottery, banding etc) it will have to be inclusive to be approved.

Also, I believe James answered this already (page 18). Hatcham believe the non-verbal reasoning scores are a better tool for assessing ability as they are more stable. The other scores are more influenced by the quality of previous education provision. intexasatthe moment Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I asked if anyone knew the rationale > behind Habs opting for a different banding system > than the one used by other Lewisham schools ? Or > because I said that being geographically close to > The Charter ( if this all goes ahead ) they'd be > in competition for talented children ?

Yes, but Lewisham asked the school to adopt banding (they used to have a lottery within a 3 mile radius for half the places and distance for the other 50% of places after siblings, special needs etc). The lottery was designed to overcome the potential issue with distance only criteria that leads to wealthier parents buying a place at the school. However, Lewisham wanted to organise borough wide banding which is most effective when all schools adopt a banding policy. Hatcham was asked to switch to banding, which it did and now all schools in Lewisham use bands. Therefore complaining about Hatcham's admissions policy and wishing the council could set it, in this specific instance is totally illogical. intexasatthe moment Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Free schools/Academys/Foundation schools determine > their own admissions policies .

Door to door its 30 min to the City. It totally depends on where you are commuting to and where you live oin ED. If having a short commute is important to you just restrict your search area to be close to the right station. Justknow that means you can't have too many other deal breakers.

You so realise it is Lewisham council that set the admission policy... intexasatthe moment Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm not sure what to think about this . > > I don't like the idea of all through schools - > just feel that kids sometimes need a fresh start > and that their options to go elsewhere will be > diminishing with this trend . Also feels a bit > like indoctrination - Pimlico Academy that I'm a > little familar with and follow are very keen on a > particular American curriculum following ED Hirsch > and they start young with them at primary . > Reminds me of that Jesuit thing - give me a boy at > 7 ..... .Except now it's a child at 4 or 5 > .http://www.theguardian.com/education/2012/oct/15/ > hirsch-core-knowledge-curriculum-review > > I digress . Could not including the primary > transfer pupils in the banded places available be > fairer ? Means all external candidates are > competing on a level playing field ? But > obvioulsly limits amount of places available and > presumably shifts the whole " buying into the area > " tactic down to primary school level . > > What a nightmare . What a mistake that we've gone > down this route of Academys ,Free Schools and not > put the money poured into them to better use in > improving LA ( and in my dream world inner london > authority ) schools .

I agree with Jeremy

PokerTime, I don?t think that people are reduced to scamming because of poverty. That?s where we differ fundamentally. Begging of course (as I've stated a few times) is different.

Pokertime who would possibly disagree with that. I have already confirmed I agree with that sentiment entirely. What I disagreed with was: 1. Egberg's comment on race which has nothing to do with any of this and should never have been made 2. The characterization of the various people on this thread as being pitiable and purely victims of circumstance. While some of the individuals described may or may not be mentally ill, the scam described by the OP is not the reserve of those suffering from mental health issues! Some are simply con artists and con artists are a type sociopath (rich or poor). http://www.amazon.co.uk/Without-Conscience-Disturbing-World-Psychopaths/dp/1572304510 People that beg or even steal are very different to con artsits who have a very specific personality disorder that allows them to manipulate people in a very personal manner. Again, below is the quote I took exception to that Charles initially was trying to defend... I'm glad that I don't feel that I have to survive > by lying, but like a few others Sue I benefit from > an event of pure luck. > I'm a white, middle class man born into an > educated white middle class family. Things are > stacked in my favour. I'm very lucky indeed. I still think bringing race and class into a thread largely about con artists suggests a warped view of the working class / non white population.

I think longer term tenancies are definitely needed. Commercial lease contracts as standard are much longer than even the proposed secured tenancy term. I suppose the question is, would people want to be tied into longer term contracts? Sometimes you just need to rent for a short period of time (between moving homes). What if you need to move for your job? Would you have to find a new tenant for the property for your landlord to release you?

Before anyone else jumps in, please read the thread. The person I was originally responding- egber- brought race in to it not me. I was saying that bringing race into it was inappropriate and misguided as well as condescending. So it seems we all agree about that now...

Not really http://healthland.time.com/2011/11/07/study-whites-more-likely-to-abuse-drugs-than-blacks/ The perception that being white in anyway provides some sort of protection against the ailments described above is misguided. Race has nothing to do with it.

1. The ONS data for the period you linked to above is still experimental (yes, even the most recently published data) 2. I provided an extended period of rental inflation figures in my previous posts and told you the source. I have not just provided one year. 3. The 2013 rental inflation figure is in the region of 4% as of December 2013 according to the LSL 3. The 2011 growth spurt you mention is not picked up in the ONS data but only in the adjusted Shelter figures and the LSL figures to be clear 4. If you accept the Shelter re-weighted analysis for 2011 is correct and the 2011 ONS data for the same period is wrong, what in your view was behind the recovery in rents? Real wages were falling dramatically and the country was in recession... 5. The significant increase in the ability for would-be renters to become first time buyers (as I mentioned several pages ago) is predicted to result in a temporary slow down in rental growth as people moving from the rental sector to owner occupation reduces demand for rental properties. This kicked in most strongly the latter half of 2013. This phenomena in and of itself drives up housing prices, while like for like reducing rents until a new equilibrium is reached. Therefore, one would expect to see going forward, a like for like slow down in rental growth and an acceleration of the increase in house prices until a new equilibrium is reached To be frank, I feel like we are going in circles. We trust different data and are therefore reaching different conclusions. You are arguing that it is easier for the average person in London to afford to pay market rents today than it was almost 10 years ago I disagree based on the LSL data, the fact that the ONS data is experimental and personal experience.

That's a fine sentiment and one I largely agree with. However, there is a big difference between being grateful you don't have mental health issues and you aren't addicted to drugs (we should all be grateful for that if that's the case) and saying you are lucky you are white and middle class and therefore are less likely to behave like the people being discussed on this thread some who may be suffering from various afflictions and others who are con artists. It was Eberg who said that not you but you took up the point.

Ok, if you run into her and she does the same routine she has for others on here, offer to buy her some baby food instead of cash and see how she reacts

These aren't beggars, they are con-artists. Some might be drug addicts and all drug addicts can behave like this.

Also, the LSL has data that goes back further but I don't have the time to find it. However, I found found the research sited in research papers so I now the historical data does exist though the publication started after the initial data set.

The ONS has only been publishing private rental data since 2011 which is less time than the LSL and by their own admission the data they provide is still experimental. Here is some guidance on experiemental data from the ONS themselves: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/hpi/index-of-private-housing-rental-prices/index.html http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/method-quality/general-methodology/guide-to-experimental-statistics/index.html Quote: When do experimental statistics become non-experimental? This will be a matter of statistical judgement, but typically will take into account factors such as: ?When it is judged that statistical methods have settled down ?When coverage reaches a good level ?When user feedback indicates that these statistics are useful and credible ?When the defined development phase has ended ?When it is judged that the statistics meet the rigorous quality standards of National Statistics. If you want to insist this experimental dataare the better source data when Shelter themselves had to re-weight the data set to make it consistent over a short period of time then that's your judgement call. However, Shelter following academic guidance came up with figures closer to the LSL's for 2011 than to the ONS's data set. Make of that what you will. I think at this point we simply have to agree to disagree. You believe rents have grown more slowly or in line with real wages in London based on experimental data from the ONS. I conclude based on decreasing affordability (private rents as a percentage of total income has been increasing) as well as LSL statistics that rents have grown significantly more than real wages. Even anecdotal experience over the last 10 years suggests that rents have increased by much more than the ONS's 12% since 2005. I'm note sure there are many London renters whose personal experience would tally with that...

For Blackcurrent: My previous post provided a circa 10 year analysis of nominal and real wages. The data on private rentals is slightly more complicated so for full disclosure, I will details the issues below: There are two main sources for statistics on the private rental market in the UK. LSL ? most often used and quoted ONS- official government statistics on private rent started a few years ago but they publish look back data The LSL stats are still the most widely reported as the ONS statistics are experimental statistics that are still undergoing refinement and adjustment regarding treatment, weighting, etc. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/method-quality/general-methodology/guide-to-experimental-statistics/index.html The Shelter report I linked to earlier used the ONS data with certain weighting adjustments to provide a like for like analysis between data sets that were signed off by an academic researcher as the most appropriate methodology. It produces very different results to the unadjusted ONS data set. The experimental (unadjusted) ONS data shows circa 12% rental growth in London from 2005 to 2013 (that is as far back as it goes). The LSL index shows significantly higher private rental growth (I don?t have the time to reconstruct the like for like data set but the LSL data set for 2010 to 2013 showed London rental growth of circa 24% whereas the ONS experimental data has rental growth of just 5% over the same period to give you an idea of the magnitude of the discrepancy between the two data sets. Based on the LSL data rental growth has outstripped wage growth over a significant period of time. The Policy exchange report calculates rental inflation as 80% in the 10 years to 2011 using LSL data for example. This is significantly above wage nominal wage growth over the same period in one of my previous government links. You of course can decide to