landsberger

Mariamadeit Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Note that the places for Harris ex are currently > on distance from the lordship lane site, not the > temp site. I was just about to make this point. And there will not be additional provision built into Dulwich whilst other schools remain unsubscribed. From the school gate gossip I've been hearing, I wouldn't bank on Ivydale being ready for more kids next (academic) year.

bobbsy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Can someone explain to a layman why many central > city areas across England are so labour centric? Er, because privately educated, out of touch, bloated plutocrats don't tend to represent them very well, perhaps?

Dadadada Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > landsberger - I'am afraid you're wrong on several > counts: that guidance does apply. JKPS has a > demise of the whole space for school use and has a > Landlord & Tenant Act 1954 protected lease until > 2062 of the entire space Including the playing fields ? Isn't this actually a separately concluded lease, as I recall. >(so its tenancy is at > least a further 47 years and potentially > indefinite). A free school is an academy (look at > para 6 of the guidance) and a maintained school. Don't disagree with that, but fairly sure the lease didn't cover the area you are talking about. > "1. Section 77(1) of the SSFA applies to the > disposal of playing fields by...the governing body > of a maintained school...where, in the case of > both disposals and changes of use, the playing > fields are used by a maintained school (including > a maintained nursery school) for the purposes of > the school; or have been used by a maintained > school for the purposes of a school at any time > during the preceding 10 years." BOOM! But they are not actually playing fields. Southwark Park Primary use Southwark Park as playing fields - does that impede the Council if they were to try and dispose of some or all of it ? > Do you really think the Secretary of State will > give consent to reduce the school's useable > external space to 2-3 square metres per child? It's happened elsewhere. As I am sure you are aware BB98 and 99 do not apply to academies or free schools. > Moreover, should the Dulwich Estate be using its > public subsidy as a charitable entity to achieve > that aim? Who knows ?

It's a state funded free school. The complicating factor here is that it does not own the land on which its "playing fields" are situated on (if it were a state school, this would be more likely).

Report it to who ? Is it actually parked illegally or just inconsiderately ?

Get in contact with Admissions - if it's a school in ED I am sure they will be delighted at the extra place (unless it's at an under subscribed school...)

There's circumstantial evidence that one estate agent was erecting them outside properties to advertise themselves, even when they were not involved in the sale (usually blocks)

This is interesting, and has the potential to show useful information but you need to assure yourself that the data reflects what actually happened. Are all the admissions shown done solely on distance grounds ? Because someone could live 2 miles away and would be admitted to the school on medical/social/LAC grounds, or because the school prioritise kids with the pupil premium (as schools now can) ? The distance shown may also vary as to the number of children applying in that area at the time. The only really useful data I have found is to look at a scattergram of applications from kids and whether they got in and under what category. Admissions will not form a perfect circle for instance.

Not strictly ED, but with the potential to affect ED parents. John Donne Primary School are "consulting" on opening a Free Primary School in the area, now that Harris Nunhead have pulled out. They haven't (yet) named a site, but are using the same duff "demand" data Harris did. They are an academy and applied to the DfES a couple of years ago to open a secondary school on their site (they were turned down flat).

> 1) Many families won't want to send their kids to > a brand-new school, which will have no permanent > buildings for the first couple of years at least. Actually, I have usually found completely the opposite is true. And it's Charter... > 2) Many families who live within the catchment > will take up sibling places in other schools from > their older children. Maybe, or maybe not. I don't think it's that much of a draw, tbh. > 3) There will be no sibling places taken up in the > new school so all 240 places will be free (compare > that to Charter 1 this year, which had a huge > number of places already taken up by siblings - 70 > out of 180, I believe). 70 out of 180 is not that many. And yes, in the early stages, it will draw wider for the reasons you state. > Combined, these three things will make a > difference. And remember, those extra 240 places > will free up more space in other co-ed schools > like Kingsdale. You mean the school that one year barely admitted 1/4 of the kids from Southwark (heaven forfend they admit kids who might not get 5 A* to Cs...I don't think more kids to Kingsdale will benefit Southwark any.

etta166 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > landsberger Wrote: > > > > There is a legal limit of 30 children per > teacher > > in an reception class and this limits the > powers > > of an appeal panel hearing your appeal. They > can > > only consider: > > > > My son's reception class went up to 31 after a > late admission mid-way through the autumn term, > and the school explained to us that they can go up > to 34 in exceptional circumstances (e.g. multiple > birth group, SEN or social need for a child > arriving mid-year, etc.) I don't think it happens > often, but infnat classes can and do go over 30. You're right, but unless your appeal was based on twins and/or SEN, it is bound to fail.

------------------------------------------------------- > As a word of caution, the year my eldest started > school, I was given on "furthest distance" by the > school office of one school, another on the day of > the tour of that school and a third one when I > asked for clarification. It does not seem to be > an exact science... They differed by several > hundred metres from the smallest to the biggest > answer that I got. Well, there is an exact distance but it's not the same every year, and not everyone keeps their knowledge current, unfortunately. > Also, it is hard to predict from year to year. Definitely, it depends on a number of factors, siblings, medicals, children of governors or staff (at academies), socials, Looked After Children, all take precedence before distance based kids. > Based on the experience on my road, the furthest > distance offered on the first round for DVIS seems > to be about 200-250m bigger than the last distance > after the waiting list and appeals last year. > That seems like a huge variation in one year. Bear in mind when appeals come, the only chance of success is to prove there is something they didn't take into consideration at admission time, or a mistake has been made. It's insufficient just to say "I didn't get a place". They know that. They also know why you didn't get a place (usually you live too far away from it). They?ll check that the school?s admission arrangements comply with the Schools Admissions Code (which, as Southwark goes through these with a thin tooth comb, is almost always the case), There is a legal limit of 30 children per teacher in an reception class and this limits the powers of an appeal panel hearing your appeal. They can only consider: a) If the school's admission arrangements comply with the law b) Whether a mistake has been made with your application c) If admitting further children would breach the infant class limit of 30 pupils per teacher d) if the decision to refuse your child a place at the school was "unreasonable". "Unreasonable" in relation to an appeal, is used in the legal sense and means that the decision to refuse your child a place at the school was perverse or illogical.

Sarah9999 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Does anybody know yet when the distance > information for this year will be available? > > > thanks Sarah You can get the distance information for the community schools already from the admissions team, IIRC, but bear in mind a) this does NOT include the VA schools or academies as they control their own admissions (this point seems to be missed by many) b) the distances are provisional, as admissions are still admitting lates/appeals etc c) the distances can vary massively depending on how many siblings there are in the school. So 250m or less from the school gate may pass muster one year but only 100m the following year.

I think part of the problem seems to be that, in the present Southwark plan (drawn up before the school opened or moved there), the land concerned was identified as an area that could be built on. When the new plan is drawn up this year, naturally people can lobby for this to change.

Good luck with that - you do know they are horrendously oversubscribed, and presently full in every year group, I presume? Or have you already been offered a place? (lucky you if this is the case) They are a very good school, and, as you can see, very popular, and yes, a very diverse (though definitely with more of a White-UK middle class base than Heber) school socially and ethnically.

------------------------------------------------------- > Unfortunately you (like us) live in one of the > local black holes - well very limited choice > areas. When we applied in 2013 we put the 5 > closest community schools and got it in none. > > Here is a map for the 2014 catchment areas. The > green pins are under-subscribed schools, blue pins > are over subscribed community, the red pins are > over subscribed non-community schools. > > http://www.scribblemaps.com/maps/view/East_Dulwich > _Schools_2014/Hn3Q46F0LW > > What is also worrying is the admissions went up 4% > on last year. I think that is a lot more than > Southwark were predicting. No, they went up by the amount the Council predicted and it was a 6% increase in application this year from last. The Council don't know how many kids will turn up in September yet, as there will be late applicants and appeals, but probably about 4-5% higher than last year (which is what has been predicted). Much is written about this, and using the catchment distances is one way of doing things, but by no means accurate. If the numbers of siblings or late applications stayed the same each year, you could with some assurance say that x school admits up to y distance. The trouble is that the Councils hands are tied very tightly. If there is a shortage of spaces, one of the following scenarios plays out i) the Council wants to open a new school; STOP ! Councils cannot open new schools, this is specifically forbidden in existing legislation - they must procure a free school or academy for the site ii) the Council wants to enable a new academy - first - find a piece of land. Then, hold a competition for an academy, or invite free schools to bid. The Council has no say in who is appointed as a sponsor, they are consulted, but that's it. So you want a 2FE community school for the area - you end up with a 3FE Church school who don't actually admit local (heathen) kids. Oh, and adding the search for a sponsor and competition/application adds at least 18 months to 2 years to the process iii) the Council wants to expand a popular school: STOP ! Do you know how bad the parking is round here ? I can't park here as it is. And the extension will overlook my garden. If we expand a school to 3FE we will have to start admitting children from LAMBETH (the horror of it). We like small schools, if we expand to 4FE, little Cristella will be swamped by other children. All arguments that have played out in the past. iv) the Council wants to admit a bulge class: some of the above, PLUS a complaint that the bulge class will mean that there will be more siblings in the next few years, and less distance based kids. v) the Council orders an academy or free school to expand: They can't. That's it. I may be exaggerating for effect, but not by much...

Waverley School became one of the Harris empire last decade.

Bic Basher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The good news about this proposal is that the PO > remains a standard crown PO with no additional > retail outlet. > > I've used the self service terminals at a central > London PO and it does speed up transactions. It does, providing people know how to use them. Every time I try to use one oif the four ones at London Bridge Station, there are at least 3 people asking the poor PO employee what the difference between a small parcel and a large parcel is, or how to fill out a customs form.

henryb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't see how the land being correctly > registered is denying Dulwich Estate?s legal > rights in anyway. They can still apply for > planning permission however it is registered. > > Even so as the land is currently being used as a > playing field and leased by the school I would > have thought any planning application would have > to involve Sports England and the Secretary of > State. This would apply if it were a permanent arrangement, but it's a short term lease. Guidance here. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/406552/Advice_on_the_Protection_of_School_Playing_Fields_and_Public_Land_-_November_2014.pdf page 5 "where a local authority makes playing field land available to an academy via a leasehold agreement, subsections (1) and (3) continue to apply to that land for a period of 10 years since the land was last used by a maintained school (usually the date on which the school converted to academy status). Beyond 10 years, the protections on public land contained in Schedule 1 to the Academies Act 2010 continue to apply" It's not a local authority school, for one.

Consider taking the train as well - there are direct SNCF trains from Lille to Normandy and Brittany, often with a cross platform transfer from Eurostar (a mere one hour journey) at Lille, and kids can rampage up and down the the aisles much more so than in a car.

Peckhamryemum Wrote: > If you'd read what I wrote you would have seen > that I wrote that you are not a parent at the > school. I didn't say you weren't a parent at all. So that means I am not entitled to an opinion, then ? > It just seems that you have far too much time on > your hands So, it seems, do you. > if you spend all your time looking for > stats If (as I said) I have these facts already (I work in education, remember ?) then I spent no time at all > to let us know what a crappy school you > think the new Harris is. I think it's a potentially low achieving, unpopular school with limited recruitment that is a massive waste of money - MY taxpayer's (and Council tax payer's) money being lavished on a dodgy sponsor with close links to the governing coalition. Maybe you could use all > that spare time to help me iron all my children's > Harris uniforms Send them to me and we'll see what I can do. > The school is here and it's staying. At the present rate of recruitment, and the doubt over planning permission on Lordship Lane, I wouldn't be so sure. Harris Nunhead was apparently a "shoo-in" last year, and even received EFA permission to open, so where are they now ? > I'm looking > forward to getting to know all the supportive > parents this school seems to have. You may have a long wait > This is my last word on the subject. Like it was last time, it seems

Or they put down 2 academies and 4 church schools and then blame the Caaaaaaaaaaaaaaahncil (who control admissions to neither) when they don't get admitted.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What about the moral argument? Morality doesn't come into planning consent, sadly. Just cold, hard cash. And Councils have so little leeway these days, it's as if there's no need for consent at all.

> And sibling place is different. People have realised with horror recently that the sibling rule is trounced by the religious rule in many schools. > But I have heard several people on different > occasions saying along the lines of "I'm only > putting the one I want, then they'll have to give > it to me". These people are idiots and deserve not > to get what they arrogantly think they can bully > their way in to. If I had a pound for every time I heard this I'd be a rich person. See also "if I put 2 completely unrealistic choices 1 and 2, they HAVE to give me my third choice...

------------------------------------------------------- > I love a good statistic as much as the next > person, but unfortunately that doesn't help me > find out more about this particular school Strange, as it seems many parents are obsessed with school league tables, which are statistics, pure and simple. They rarely, if ever, look at the same stats for value added. > and any > negative points. From my understanding of posts > above points of concern are that a teacher left > suddenly (no idea what reason was), facilities > will be an issue once new reception take over > current lunch room (I was aware of that from the > school tour), planning is not yet in place (yes > the move date is one of the bigger concerns for > me) and some parents are unhappy (but we don't > know why). Oh and it's Harris. Problems run deeper than that, in reality - Harris have both real problems, and a problem with PR. There will always be children who thrive wherever they go. There's very real doubt the school can function on the planned site. > Calls for parents to do their research doesn't > really help when we've got all the info we can > from the school, council and parents who have > posted positive feedback. Well, parents haven't done the research, have they ?