intexasatthe moment

I have a feeling that the people selling outside somerfield are related ,a family . Don't know how this fits in with Big Issue rules ,but can see how it might lend legitimacy to several people sharing one pitch.

Fairlawn is a great school ,and speaking as a longterm resident of SE22 ,if I could choose I'd move up to Marmora area if I could . Check out how close you need to be to Fairlawn - sure Lewisham must have details on line about distance from school for last intake. Not so sure about this area being good for secondary schools though. But note that you may not still be living here then.

Thank you James. Of course the point was that this Academy can ,if they wish ,apply to increase the agreed admission number for any specfic year . Not the same as one or two people replacing one or two who have moved out - that would be natural movement from the waiting list. However as I've said ,I imagine it is to enable the Academy to accept individual applications into a year group that is full. I don't see the link between breaking a planning regulation ( which are not in any case relevant to the issue we are discussing ) and withdrawing an offered place .

Great news about the sinusoidal humps - tried these out in Camberwell Grove and they are a great improvement on usual type .

James -I don't want to take up your time ,know lots of other issues to deal with ,so this post is really just to clarify. When I first saw this " The Harris Boys'Academy may set a higher admission number as its Published Admission Number for any specific year " in the Funding Agreement that defines how the school is run ,I was shocked . Which is why I posted it here. Having given it thought I have reached the conclusion that it's existence is probably nothing to worry about - as I said I'm guessing it's there to enable entry to year groups for certain isolated cases where admission is required despite that year group having reached its defined max nos. If I'd worked that out earlier ,assuming I'm right ,I wouldn't have mentioned it - rather wish I hadn't. But the clause is there and its existence means that the maxium number can be exceeded. And I'm afraid that the cynic in me wonders what action Southwark could take in enforcing any breach of planning with regard to this ,or any ,school.The ultimate sanction of closing the school ?

James - I appreciate that planning applications can be rejected . Harris have ,in their funding agreement for this building ,a clause which allows them ,subject to " consultation " ( my inverted commas ) to increase the number of admissions for any year. One of the bodies to be consulted is Southwark. You raised the idea that this would involve the planning department . I am baffled by your remarks about planning department and rejecting planning applications - we are talking about a building that is nearly complete ,a school that already has it's first year of entry and a funding agreement that sets out how the school will operate and the legal framework within which it does so. Harris' ability to "ask " for an increase in admissions numbers is ongoing ,not something that just applied during the planning process. The clause refers to increasing admissions numbers for " any specific year " - so I imagine it is there to allow the school to admit any special cases - maybe statemented children or someone who has won a place by appeal ,over and above the official number. I doubt - but don't know - that it is there to allow a huge jump in admission numbers.

So they are - I had never noticed this tab !Doh! Thanks PGC.

Good point Peckham Rose - could admin come up with something? Handy links for ED residents?

Sympathies ,expect you're still in shock ,even if you don't think you are. Sure when you've got your head round it ,you'll take everyone's advice.

Just thinking ,what could a planning committee do if they were unhappy about a proposed increase in admissions numbers ? Ask for the planning permission to be revoked and the school knocked down?

Admissions numbers. I'd be surprised if they would'nt need to reapply for planning permission to change the numbers Why would you be amazed ? No mention of it being a requirement in funding agreement .

Absolutely agree The Beard. And the para following the one I quoted above says " The Harris Boys'Academy may set a higher admission number as its Published Admission Number for any specific year " But ,of course no need to worry about that because they have to consult first - which means lots of money and time before they go ahead and do what they like. As I've had pointed out to me( by a Director of Education /Families /whatever ,"consulting " over whether a school should become an Academy ) " A consultation isn't a rolling ballot.You can't just vote for what you want ."

I was going to suggest asking the school ,but thought I'd check the funding agreement between the sponsor and sec of state first. It says "The Harris Boy's Academy East Dulwich has an agreed admission number of 150 pupils. The Harris Boy's Academy East Dulwich will accordingly admit at least 150 boys in the relevant age group each year if sufficient applications are received." www.dcsf.gov.uk/foischeme/_documents/DfES_FoI_595.pdf This The boys? academy won?t fill all at once ? it will start with a Year 7 form and build its student body a year at a time, reaching 750 students with a 200-place sixth form by 2015. is from a Southwark fact sheet www.southwark.gov.uk/Uploads/FILE_33741.doc

There were many recommendations for handcream on this recent thread http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?29,395982,400157#msg-400157

BQC - no surprise re approval. The sponsors were determined to achieve this number of children ( not economical to run school apparently with lower nos ). What Harris want ,they get . Not sure why - sure we'll be told that gov would only supply funding for new school on condition it became an Academy.Not sure this is the whole truth ,and in any case wouldn't confine sponsorship to Harris. I believe there is a playground ,feel sure kids will get brief break at lunchtime .The school will stagger access. Feel sure the lunch time will be rushed and inadequate ,partly as a result of this. Regarding time taken in bussing kids to offsite sports ,Harris said ( in planning statement )that they intended to schedule these sessions next to lunch time and end of day. All so sad - teachers and children aren't robots ,it's not ok for them to have lunch time reduced ( and it won't be a lunch hour to start with )so that economies of scale can be achieved. But really ,we shouldn't be speculating amongst ourselves about potential problems of kids using park. The school's headteacher and SLT will be falling overthemselves to ensure good relations between school and community. If people want reassurance I suggest they raise it with them Harris Boys? Academy East Dulwich Lyall Avenue Kingswood Estate London SE21 8QS Tel: 020 8761 1910 Fax: 020 8761 6566 Email: [email protected]

This type of gap is usually used for a bike contra flow lane. There is normally a clearly designated bike lane ( green road markings and bike icons ) and signs to make the contra flow clear.

must say ,I've been wondering about this as well .

Mmm .I can see it's going to be tricky to track down,especially since the proposed numbers of students went up considerably during the course of the planning . Of course I realise it will all conform to planning regs - just wondered how it was worked out and how the building meets the requirements.

e- dealer The building's internal accomodation exceeds current standards for 900 pupils. Not doubting the vaiidity of your comment but I would be interested in more details ,have you a link giving current standards ? And some idea of the Academy's internal specification to make a comparison ?

Well actually the generator that was disturbing my sleep went last Friday. Maybe something else is cause of your problem. Sympathy anyway.

James - bit of cross posting with your Can I help Thread ,I think. My ongoing concern is with Southwark Secondary Schools and I have been querying with you the assertion that Caroline Pidgeon had negotiated a common entrance policy. You think that common entrance application form = common entrance policy and I disagree. You have responded to both me and Steveo - I think we should be allowed to keep posting if we are not happy with your reply or feel that it doesn't answer our concern without sarcastic remarks about " being the councillor solely for Steveo ".

James - as far as I am aware Lib Dems supported central gov policy to create Academies. I read your comment we bit our tongues to ensure the best for our Southwark kids in these central government led circumstances. as disengenous. As far as school admissions are concerned - Southwark Secondaries do not have a common entrance policy ,they all control their own admissions criteria and they vary hugely. A common entrance application form ( as negotiated by Caroline Pidgeon ) is not the same thing as as a common entrance policy.

James - as far as I can see Steveo has asked about the cost of producing Southwark Life and resurfacing roads. It's true that he has persisted with his enquiries in an effort to get an answer. Is that wrong ? You seem to be implying that he is monopolising your services . I'm trying to answer your queries without becoming the councillor solely for Steveo

James - I don't really have anything to add to my post My enquiry was initially prompted by your remarks about Caroline Pidgeon securing a common admissions policy . I agree ,we do now have a system that uses a common application form ,it's just the admissions criteria that vary so much. With a child who went through secondary transfer prior to 2002 ,I don't recognise the situation you describe - yes ,individual application forms ,but state schools weren't all asking year 6 to take tests. I note your remark that you don't approve of Academies in principle and that it's the Governments choice that this is the " only show in town ". But didn't Lib Dems support the Academy movement until recently http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6008298 ? Isn't it a bit disengenous to distance yourself from the fact that Southwark now have so many schools that control their admissions policies and are not accountable to parents or Southwark I don't know what words I can use ( PM or not ) to make it clear that I am unhappy because you said that Caroline Pidgeon had secured a " common admissions policy " for Southwark Secondary Schools. You ignore all my comments about the different admissions criteria now required by Southwark Secondary Schools - which in my book means that no commons admissions policy exists ,and start talking about school application forms. To crown it all you try to shift the responsibilty for this situation by saying I guess this is another downside to the Governments answer to secondary school places being Acadamies. And yes I am against them on principal but it is the 'only show in town'. As far as I know ,Lib Dems supported the Academy movement until they did a U turn a few weeks ago. This kind of exchange is pointless and is not you trying to be helpful ,it is you ignoring the question and trying to score a political point.

Oh Hal ,fascinating link .Thank you ! But sorry - the pedant in me can still only regard " as a quotation mark. ' is an apostrophe.