landsberger

Peckhamryemum Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What a bitter person you are. Sad that you are judgmental about someone you don't know. But fairly typical of the kind of chippy, defensive attitude ones comes to expect of some. You also state "people who have no real facts about the schools" - and then I quote you, well, facts. Make your mind up. > I do know plenty of Harris teachers and as with > all schools teachers opinions vary. So do I. I know that there is a massive turnover at Harris schools (not just in this borough) because they have unrealistic expectations of teachers, and are completely unsupportive. Harris also do not engage with local Councils, and this proves very problematic, here and elsewhere. > I work in Primary (not for Harris before you ask!) and the > picture you're painting is simply a very negative > one. I work in education too (in case you hadn't guessed), and the picture, whilst negative, is the ungarnished truth. > I mentioned the secondary as that's my experience, > all my daughters friends recieved similar results > and my daughter turned down 6th forms like Charter > and opted to stay at HGAED. Fine, and I am sure kids do well at many schools they attend, but the figures do speak for themselves. in 2006, Harris schools were 92% occupied, that's now 84% (and falling) - 16% vacancies, even with their covertly selective admissions policies. In the same time, Southwark secondary schools have gone from 99.8% occupancy to 100.2%. > I'm really not sure why you keep choosing to bash > people with your statistics, the thread was > supposed to be an opportunity for new parents to > get opinions of the school from parents already > there, of which you are neither. I love this "I am a parent and you are not, and therefore you have no right to comment" attitude. How do you know where I live and how many kids I have ? Terrible me with my statistics, eh ?

Believe me, Peckhamryemum, I have plenty of evidence and facts about Harris schools, and it's all available out there for free, on the web. Bottom performing secondary school in Southwark ? Harris Peckham, 50% 2nd bottom ? Harris Bermondsey - 51% Harris Girls, reaches the dizzy heights of 56%, and 6th from bottom. Southwark average - 65% (including Harris) Harris average - 57% Anyway, we are talking about Primaries here, are we not? Only one Harris School has KS2 results (Harris Peckham) - 78%. Southwark average - 81%. This borough would be WAY off better without Harris. Just ask any Harris staff member why they have such a massive turnover of staff.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > With the duplicate applications for the new Belham > free school it will mean another 60 relatively > local places being released as people choose > either the Belham or whichever other school place > they were offered. Depends from which schools they come from (perhaps undersubscribed ones like Heber) or if some come out of private education (I am assuming some will) > But 160 disappointed families across Southwark is > still 160 disappointed families. I am intrigued as to what you think is a solution to this. Mine ? I would analyse the 160 "disappointed" families' applications and see just how many of them had only put one school, or had been completely unrealistic. Received wisdom is that it's Peckham and around there that has the highest proportion of disappointed applicants, despite there being an excess of places. An analysis of why people don't make realistic applications is probably long overdue. > This year does feel much better for primary school > admissions. Phew! I hope so > If anyone has admissions problems - we're here to > help. Ward councillors in East Dulwich ward and > the surrounding wards. Or you could always try the Admissions people first !

Mugglesworth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > landsberger Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Typical that people are having a pop (as usual) > at > > the Council. Planning law is now so far skewed > in > > respect of the applicants that Councils have > > little or no leeway to refuse without very, > very > > good reasons, and if they do, they bear the > cost > > of the appeal. > > I would have thought that the following > constitutes a very, very good reason: > > "The Dulwich Estate?s plan to deprive JKPS of its > only playing field is contrary to government > policy of safeguarding playing fields" Er, but it's not a full time playing field constructed for that purpose.

Tarot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Someones took their eye off the ball. Should council staff be touring the borough every day looking for infractions ?

Fuschia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 1st preferences for schools are not published by > LAs. I am not getting the figures from the LA

Norfolkvillas Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @landsberger - maybe your contact at the school > was thinking of the Sept 2014 intake, as our two > reception classes are only 23 pupils per class? > As Caroline said, this week's newsletter > references 180 applications for 2015, and given > Southwark will be publishing this figure at some > point for all to see, it would seem a bit unlikely > that they'd lie about it.... Harris have stretched the truth about many things. My school contact tells me they had *less than 20* 1st preferences, apparently. If Harris are so brilliant, why are so many of their Southwark schools half empty ?

Tarot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hello James, Could you explain how the Southwark > council have allowed what appears to be an illegal > build in a > house in Darrel road, E.D.they have built a two > story four bedroomed house in their back > garden,and added an extra front door. > A farmer has recently lost his case to keep his > castle he built, and has to knock it down so will > we see this house knocked down it surely cannot be > legal.? The Council need to be informed to enforce. I saw the farmer's programme on the TV and I am sure (have you checked on line yet) if it is an illegal build, he will be asked to demolish Some people blame the Council if the bus is late, it seems

No, James, that's wrong. 80% got their first preference, 91% got their top 3. If 150 families put unrealistic choices on the form, and the school hasn't got the room to expand, is that the Council's fault? There was a woman on the telly earlier on from somewhere up north whose kid didn't get into a school, and she was whining as she'd only put 1 preference - you would be alarmed at the number of people from the 150 families I am sure who probably only put 1 preference down. It couldn't be that you are trying to make political capital out of people's disappointment, could it ?

My contact at the school tells me they received...less applications than places were available. And how they'd squeeze them into the Police Station site, maybe that's not a bad thing.

Sorry to hear this. I was talking to some applicants today and there appears to be a greater number of people applying for...a fewer group of schools. There are plenty of places left in some schools.

180 applications ? I *very* much doubt it.

Typical that people are having a pop (as usual) at the Council. Planning law is now so far skewed in respect of the applicants that Councils have little or no leeway to refuse without very, very good reasons, and if they do, they bear the cost of the appeal.

Actually, I am personally more in favour of the Committee system as it goes, but 3 Rivers DID have an Overview and Scrutiny System previous, and all the Chairs of every committee in the whole council were and are occupied by the Majority Party.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi first mate, > As an opposition councillor we have to weigh up > what we call-in via Overview & Scurtiny Committee. > We appear to have upset Labour when we chaired > this committee such that they now have a Labour > chairperson - with a majority they decide this > although it is breaking a long tradition of the > leading party not chairing the committee that > scrutinses the ruling party. Er, have a look at Liberal Democrat controlled Three Rivers District Council - with about 1/3 of the Councillors belonging to the opposition councillors. 4 O & S Committees, guess how many are chaired by the opposition? Go on, guess, James. Guess how many have an opposition Vice-Chair ? Go, on, guess. > We have always been > reticent about using this call-in power for fear > of Labour umbridge and losing it. Though you whinged like mad when Labour used this when you were in power...

> You are incorrect in stating private schools contribute nothing to the education economy. Aside from taking teachers and other resources out of the system? > parents who send their children to private school > have a right to use the state system and don't. And schools are paid per pupil, so if the mass of privately educated people moved into the state sector the money would follow them. > If every privately educated child transferred to state education as is their right, schools would be massively > strained both in terms of physical capacity and funding- remember those parents already pay taxes even though they use > private education. Or you could just take over the existing schools and run them on more egalitarian and accessible lines. Just a thought > I personally think the entire system needs reform People who say that usually mean "bring back selection" > and attitudes also need to change about 'social climbing' as you call it There are people who send their kids for private schools because they can. There are people who do it because they think (and it is occasionally true - perhaps 10% of children? - benefit from the facilities private schools provide; there are people who send their kids to private schools because they believe in all the horror stories in the gutter press about state education. There are people who send their kids to private schools because they are snobs. Or sometimes a mix of two or more of the above. > Criticising parents who make decisions within an unfair system seems harsh and also missing the greater issue. What is the greater issue, please ? I have every right to criticise parents who send their kids to school for snobbery reasons and/or because it damages and removes resources from state education. You have every right to counter this.

Do we have to shamelessly ape everything the Americans do ? When I was a kid, we had no proms, no baby showers, no play dates, all of which are US in origin.

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have very mixed feelings about the private > education sector in this country There's no need - they are poison, pure and simple. They take state trained teachers and contribute almost nothing to the education economy. Whilst they may improve the life chances of a few high fliers, the low and middle achievers are poisoned by their presence, their hogging of resources and the fact that the 2nd and 3rd tiers within the private schools actually do commensurately worse than had they remained in the state sector. > but it's attitudes like this that are at the root of the > entrenched class system In the UK. That's a fairly unreal reading of the situation. It's private schools that contribute to the class divide, not people who criticise them. > Britain has one of the worst records on social mobility and > I'm convinced it's this 'know your place' attitude > that is in part the cause. Typified by, er, privately educated people and the people who run their schools > Wanting your children to have more than you do in this country is seen > as crass which is nuts So, not wanting to send your kid to a private school is not "wanting your children to have more than you" ? That's a fairly oblique reading of the above. > and why this place still has a ruling elite that hasn't changed much in decades... Mainly because the private education sector is only open to the chosen few.

Amen, Curmudgeon. There are a few aspirational primaries (strangely enough, mainly academies) around who encourage parents to apply for schools their kids don't stand a cat in hell's chance of getting into.

Sol Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I know there are good state secondaries in Dulwich > but I am wondering why none of them are on these > lists: > > http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/multimedia/arc > hive/00354/LONDON_354976a.pdf > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/leaguetables/ > 10246791/A-level-results-2013-results-from-400-sta > te-schools.html To be honest, I would look further than 2 Conservative Party supporting newspapers when looking for a 'good school'. They are much more likely to choose a school that reflects adherence to their particular philosophy rather than anything else. ALL Southwark Secondaries are either Ofsted "Good" or "Outstanding" rated.

A website for women who have been discriminated against whilst they were pregnant or after having a baby. It is estimated that 50,000 women a year lose their jobs due to maternity discrimination. This doesn't include the women who are demoted, harassed, aren't put forward for promotion or lose contracts if they are self employed. Pregnant Then Screwed is a place for you to tell your story in your own words so that we can expose this injustice, because exposure is a step towards positive societal change.

There could be a simple reason for this - maybe the swimming teacher wants him to do something (like dive off a high board). It might be worth exploring this if he has suddenly changed.

Bear in mind that slightly better off places by no means guarantee that crime won't happen. Muggers seek opportunities where they think they will get the best results, unfortunately. Definitely report it to the police, I have personal experience of them using crime stats to change the operational organisation of policing when problems arise,

The Harris East Dulwich Primary ? I wouldn't build it at all, James, there's no real need for it. I would disperse the pupils to other schools. It's already undersubscribed and there's a substantial turnover of staff, and, so I hear from my spies at the school, fairly low numbers of applicants this year. It's a complete and utter waste of money, a vanity project, in a completely unsuitable location, in an area of low demand, given the expansions elsewhere (like Ivydale, for instance). How do you actually know there has been "...no change in birth rate, rate of people leaving the area, etc" ? How do you know upon what basis the projections were actually produced on ? I gave a number of possible reasons for variations in projections above, all of which you seem to have ignored. It couldn't of course you as a (Lib Dem) councillor were seeking to have a pop at a (Labour controlled) council could it? It couldn't be that your education spokesman Councillor Okoye was trying to make political hay last week about the secondary allocations, could it ? Edit Just had a look at the birth rate for the last complete years of projections - does this suggest a "shortage of places" to you, James ? These are actual figures, not projections. Year Borough Births in Calender year 2009 Southwark 5025 2010 Southwark 4873 2011 Southwark 5202 2012 Southwark 5035 2013 Southwark 4907 2014 Southwark 4706

> In about 6 months time Southwark Council will announce it latest pupil projections The GLA do these for the Council - they should be ready for public inspection in July 2015, so sooner than you think. > I'm still very very nervous about Sotuhwark Council having forecasted a gap of 215-235 primary school places based on a birth rate and with no change to the birth rate or other factors is now forecasting a much lower gap allowing for news schools Sotuhwark ? You don't know if they were produced on the same basis or took the same factors into consideration. The GLA constantly update their population projections with new base data deriving from births and deaths, as well as migration data from a variety of sources, all of which drive the school projections. If birth rates have suddenly increased, or a development has been ruled in (or out), or if the mix of a large development has changed, or if the fertility of the local population (or for that matter, the mortality) have changed, this will affect the population projections and by that token, the school projections. When did they forecast a "a gap of 215-235 primary school places" ? Was that just for East Dulwich or the borough as a whole? >I don't get where children have vanished between the two forecasts with no change in any factors. There's a number of factors above, which have changed. Projections previously may have included in there schools that have not come to fruition or have not filled to capacity. >I have asked to meet the forecasters to really understand the detail that has caused this - I can then agree it's fabulous news. The GLA or Southwark ones ? >we can focus on sorting out the Harris East Dulwich Primary School planning permission - stalled for a great many months with Southwark planning. Maybe because the proposed location is completely unsuitable for a primary school ?