Primary school place allocation chaos has started!

[James Barber]

Hi Smiler,

I posted the comment, 'health warning', with the Heber letter that the admissions details in the letter were not correct.

It would not have been appropriate of me to have edited the letter before posting.

It is rare for Southwark schools to have bulge classes. Southwark has around 60-70 Infant/Primary schools. Last year 3 bulge classes. Heads and schools are not practised at sending such letters. So everyone should cut a little slack when they venture into something new. I'm not expecting this school to send such a letter again. But, they are clearly very good at and getting better at great schooling for local kids.

Hi tallgirl,

You can not imagine how much easier my life would be if the letters had been sent earlier and before purdah. But latest feedback I've had is that the delay so far has enabled an extra 100 kids (3%) to be allocated their 1st choices. I'm hoping this increases further. The decision that school admissions letters should be sent outside purdah would be made by the Director of Legal Services who is legally responsible for ensuring fair play - and that the council isn't used for political advantage or disdvantage.

Post election. Old councillors terms end formally 10 May when new councillors formally become councillors. Formal constitutional decisions on who has what post get decided at full council assembly 19 May. Practically if the Lib Dems win our leader will be Nick Stanton and in the interim between 10-19 May I'd expect him on point with local councillors highlighting any issues. I'm anticipating a much much quieter period for councillors that last year.

[misticnutmeg]

mt

[VikkiM]

Smiler I don't really know why the Heber announcement has been made before the full allocations are announced but if the Headteacher felt this was the best way to reassure existing parents I wouldn't want to question that.

However, if the location of bulge classes has now been agreed, I do think it would be helpful if the council made a clear statement on this - i.e. we are having X number of bulge classes which will be located in X, Y and Z locations. Obviously it's widely known that Labour is opposed to the delay in allocations but given that we are where we are the most important thing now is that the council is clear and considerate in its communication otherwise it will simply cause confusion and worry for parents. That's exactly what happened last year and exactly what we were promised wouldn't happen this year. So, it would be good to know that Heber is the location of the East Dulwich bulge class this year, that this is the only bulge happening and these additional places will ensure that East Dulwich children will get a place at a local school. However I'm worried that in fact there may well be more bulges and the ad hoc announcement of them just leaves parents thinking that the council doesn't really know what its doing.

The following information isn't up to date (and I don't want to cause panic, worry etc.) but back in October the council identified schools where temporary or permanent bulges could be located. Temporary (i.e. it could take a one bulge class for the duration of its passage through the school) were Heber, St. Johns and St. Clements, Bessemer Grange, Ivydale, Rye Oak, Dulwich Village and Dulwich Hamlet and Dog Kennel Hill. Permanant expansions were possible at Lyndhurst (from 1.5 to 2FE ? I understand this is happening), St. Anthony?s RC (from 1.5 to 2FE ? requires extension, not sure what the latest is but they have certainly consulted about the expansion), Langbourne (from 1 to 2FE ? in existing accommodation), Oliver Goldsmith (from 2 to 3FE ? in existing accommodation), Bellenden (from 1 to 2FE ? requires extension), St. Mary Magdalene (from 1 to 2FE - requires extension) and previous plans that Hollydale should reduce from 1.5 to 1FE would now be kept under review. So, to some extent, the possibility that Heber would have a bulge class has been known for some time.

I've posted about primary school shortages on the forum several times so readers will probably know my frustrations with the council on this. At the risk of being repetitive I have to say that I fail to understand the logic of James' arguments about the 'scenario planning' and getting more kids to their 1st choice school causing the delay in allocations until 10 May. There isn't a full moon or similar in the first week of May that will magically sort out all the problems. All the work that is needed to run different scenarios could have been done at an earlier date. It's a question of allocating the resources so that the admissions team could carry out the work quicker. Either this is a top priority for the council or it isn't. We were promised extra permanent staff in the admissions team in October. They arrived in March. That's simply not on.

I also fail to understand how we could be promised improved communications with both Lewisham and Lambeth yet somehow the situation of parents having to accept or reject Lewisham places by 5th May, and the difficulty this would cause, wasn't discussed. I'm also bemused that the councils didn't have a discussion about the differing advice they had received about giving out allocations during purdah. Surely a short conversation between the legal officers could have resolved this.

So far we seem to have been offered four different reasons for the delay - increasing first choices and different scenario planning, we need to have bulge classes but Lewisham doesn?t, schools admissions staff are needed to run the elections and Purdah.

I'm not convinced by any!

Victoria

Peckham Rye Labour

[toast]

The issue here last year was that families on my street did not get any places....within two miles. My comment above stands, If they are confident they have fixed the problem why the post election delay.

[misticnutmeg]

mt

[Belle]

Misticnutmeg - I might be wrong, as not looked into it in great detail since we're a few years off primary age, but my understanding is that most schools around here, with a couple of exceptions are actually 'only' satisfactory by Ofsted standards, including some of the popular ones. So I don't think it's quite right that parents won't settle for satisfactory schools. i read all the posts about the primary school debacle last year and the overriding feeling from parents seemed to be frustration at being given schools which were far away from their homes, which makes life difficult on a practical level and also socially for kids who may have started nursery nearer, have friends nearer etc.

I also think you're being quite antagonistic to Toast and your comments aren't very helpful. It's not as simple as just getting over it, and I would guess that those discussing this issue are looking for information on what's happening, not to be told to shut up about it.

[misticnutmeg]

mt

[Smiler]

misticnutmeg, please don't make assumptions about other forum users' situations or incomes - and your tone is antagonistic.

The two-miles point refers to the fact that some kids were allocated schools more than two miles away because the local ones were oversubscribed, not the house being two miles away from the nearest school.

Not all the local schools are "satisfactory" according to Ofsted - Goose Green is "inadequate" and seems to have been in special measures since spring 2008.

It is not unreasonable of parents to seek a "good" or "outstanding" local school, as assessed by Ofsted as the regulator (obviously not perfect but the one we have) and their own impressions.

[James Barber]

Hi misticnutmeg,

I feel I must take exception to allegedly leaking good information. If I wanted to leak I'd leak much more helpful news than that but that would be morally wrong.

As I've made clear I reported information revealed to all Heber's parents by Heber School, attaching a copy of the letter with a health wanring where it was wrong, and is well and truly in the public domain.

Hardly a leak.

Last year 90% of on time applications were allocated a school within 1 mile of home. The remaining 10% were siblings for schools where the parents had moved or religious schools where we'll never be able to provide schools of all faiths within 1 mile. For late or subsequently changed applications 80%.

This year for on time applications Lambeth have achieved 75% first choice.

On 10 May it will be public what Southwark has achieved with the extra time and flexibility of working out where to put bulge classes.

Hi smiler,

Ofsted ratings. Clear someone needs to rate schools impartially. The scorecard Ofsted use do seem a little skewed. I understand Goose Green's ratings have suffered by not having enoguh community involvement. Not having a door cut through the listed building from reception to outside. I'm trying to help the school with these. But I'm surprised the teaching is'nt given more emphasis in this scorecard system. NB my day job we measure our suppliers using scorecards and we're more focused on the outcomes - so surely happy, cared for kids that are loeanring lots is more important than whether a school gets nearby businesses of non parents involved.

Any Ofsted inspectors out their PLEASE do get in touch with me as I'd really find it helpful to understan your systems.

[Fuschia]

How OFSTED works: http://www.manchester.gov.uk/governors/news/article/19/new_ofsted_framework_and_sef_format

Goose Green report: http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/oxedu_reports/download/(id)/95646/(as)/132022_315903.pdf

"In accordance with section 13 (3) of the Education Act 2005, HMCI is of the opinion that the

school requires Special Measures, because it is failing to give its pupils an acceptable standard

of education and the persons responsible for leading, managing or governing the school are

not demonstrating the capacity to secure the necessary improvement. Pupils do not make

sufficient progress in their lessons and their personal development is inadequate. This is largely

because much of the teaching in Years 1 to 6 is inadequate and the leadership's monitoring is

not strong enough to ensure that teachers fully implement school policies correctly and

consistently.

Teaching is too inconsistent to arrest a decline in pupils' progress.

Children get off to a good start in the Foundation Stage but, from then on, they make

unsatisfactory progress because there is too much inadequate teaching and not enough that

is satisfactory or good. The children start Year 1 with skills and abilities that are typical for their

age. They underachieve and too many do not reach the standards expected by the end of Years

2 and 6. Standards in mathematics are especially low.

The curriculum is satisfactory and leaders have provided the teachers with planning that is

designed to ensure that they meet the needs of all groups of pupils. Assessment systems are

in place. However, teachers vary in their ability to make secure assessments of pupils' current

knowledge and skills and consequently do not always set tasks with the right level of challenge

for all pupils.

Most parents who responded were happy with the school's performance. However, a few rightly

expressed concerns about pupils' progress and behaviour and the care of pupils. Although the

school has worked hard to liaise with outside agencies to support pupils who have emotional

needs and behaviour difficulties, care of pupils is inadequate. Some pupils complain that they

do not feel safe at school because they feel intimidated by others. They report that they are

either too scared to tell the teachers for fear of further reprisals or find, from past experience,

that their concerns will be ignored if they do so. The management of behaviour is too variable.

Rules are not consistently enforced and systems are not clearly set up. Consequently, there is

too much low-level disruption, which slows the pace of learning in some lessons. When teaching

is slow and unengaging it also increases the levels of pupils' disaffection and passivity. Behaviour

is unsatisfactory, because of this and because too many pupils move around the school with

undue care and consideration for others, they run the risk of causing accidents. This, and pupils'

weak social skills, indicates that social, moral, spiritual and cultural education are inadequate.

Pupils do not learn enough of the necessary social skills that will help them to relate to each

other and form positive relationships. This is inhibiting their ability to play a role in the local

and wider community. Pupils' information communication technology (ICT) skills have improved

since the last inspection. Nevertheless, their weak progress in English and mathematics means

that they are not prepared well enough for the next stages in their education. The schools'

achievement in acquiring the Healthy Schools award and pupils' enjoyment of sport shows that

the pupils have satisfactory knowledge about health.

Parents' responses also indicate that some of them are not clear about consultation procedures

for both parents and pupils. The school's lack of understanding that some pupils in Years 1 to

6 feel unsafe confirms that consultation is not good enough. The headteacher works extremely

hard and he and senior leaders all have a good and accurate knowledge of weaknesses in

subjects taught. They have identified them clearly in their action planning. However, leadership

and management are inadequate because the leadership team's methods for monitoring their

actions and measuring success are not robust enough to ensure the effective implementation

of these plans. There is not enough analysis of assessment information to evaluate the impact

of the schools' work or track the progress of pupils adequately. Leaders' judgements on the

quality of both outcomes and provision are much too positive and this has led to complacency.

For example, the school evaluated the care of pupils as outstanding, whereas the inspection

judgement is that this is inadequate. The leadership team and staff are not vigilant enough to

ensure that pupils behave well and that they are all safe from harm or harassment. The governing

body do not hold the school sufficiently to account for pupils' achievement. Self-evaluation is

inadequate and inaccurate and recent improvement has been limited. This demonstrates that

the school does not have sufficient capacity to improve"

[Fuschia]

And this is Goose Green's most recent report of monitoring visit (extra visits put in pace for schools in Special Measures)

http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/oxedu_reports/download/(id)/117181/(as)/132022_342826.pdf

THis is the point to which you refer I think, Mr Barber:

"The school?s self-evaluation is limited. It is accurate in some important areas, such

as the quality of teaching, but does not cover the whole range of aspects needed.

The school, and governing body, tend to measure success by noting improvements

in some key areas rather than through a rigorous, comprehensive analysis of its

current position against standard benchmarks, which is needed.

Therefore the

school does not know all of its strengths and weaknesses well enough and there are

gaps in its work. For example, the school has not audited its position in respect of

promoting community cohesion, which could help improve the curriculum and

aspects of behaviour. Self-evaluation information provided to inspectors did not

show the low attendance rate.

The school?s analysis of the progress and attainment

of pupils and groups remains limited and not fully accurate, and thus not leading

sufficiently to further targeted improvement. It has taken too long for staff and

governors to agree to purchase a new assessment software package, delaying

progress in this area. All these factors are potential barriers to the school leaving an

Ofsted category."

[Jessie]

My son is now at Goose Green and loves it - he is happy, loves going to school, is socially and intellectually confident. Every day when we walk into the playground, it feels like we're walking into a positive and happy community. I can't fault the school, especially due to our past experiences. I rate the teaching staff highly.

He was at another school which had a better OFSTED report in fact, and sadly was not at all happy there. For me as a parent not initiatted in the bureaucracy of education and Ofsted reports I find it bewildering that GG is in Special Measures at all.

[mrs.lotte]

The first section of the report quoted in Fuschia'a post is nearly 2 years old. Since that time HMI have stated clearly that they are not concerned about pupil's safety. Since that report there is a new headteacher and an overhaul of the teaching staff.

I felt as Smiler did a year ago; that my son had some sort of right to a free education at a school of my choice. That's unrealistic; you cant have the whole of East Dulwich in 1 or 2 schools. We were allocated Goose Green and I can say that I have never regretted our decision to send our son there. The teaching and discipline in reception class is superb. If you look at the school's website you will see that at a recent City Challenge inspection EYFS was deemed to be moving towards outstanding.

All of the children I have met from nursery to Y6 have been delightful. I believe that it is a happy, vibrant improving school.

Anyone who is allocated a reception place at Goose Green can, in my opinion, be assured that there child will be recieving excellent care; intellectually and pastorally.

[Smiler]

Mrs Lotte, I haven't said and don't feel that a state school of our choice is any kind of right, but would not personally be keen on a school that was assessed as inadequate by the official regulator, as Goose Green is at present.

[Coach Beth]

Yes, my son has been at Goose Green this reception - and we're totally happy with it. Since he started there, we were offered a place at both Dog Kennel Hill and St.John's on the waiting list system and we turned both down. Of course, it wouldn't have been that big an upheaval to move him since it is only reception and he knew other children at both schools from nursery - but we both felt our son was doing so well, and we were both impressed by the changes the new Head has brought in, we just turned both those places down flat. In my book, it's better to be with a school that is working hard to be on the up - your child can only benefit. My son is reading well, enjoying himself, socalising. I'm on the PTA which is growing and full of lively, energetic parents. And several people have said in the past, the kids at Goose Green are really nice!! At cake sales, we've had Year Six Students cheerfully pitching up and helping. At the spring enterprise fair where all the classes were given ?10 to make things and then sell them it was a great atmosphere. If you get offered a place at Goose Green, then be pleased! But the reality is with the waiting lists, like us, you will no doubt be offered somewhere else once the school year starts - if the school isn't working for you or your child, you can move them. But none of the reception parents this year took that option - and I think that says alot.

[Alec John Moore]

Smiler:

"Mrs Lotte, I haven't said and don't feel that a state school of our choice is any kind of right, but would not personally be keen on a school that was assessed as inadequate by the official regulator, as Goose Green is at present."

However, it isn't helpful to label a school as inadequate when there is anecdotal and official evidence to the contrary. See the letter from Ofsted dated February 2010 - the last link in Fuschia's post - which shows how much the school is improving. GG PTA sounds really good.

[James Barber]

Hi Smiler,

I can understand your reticence and I suggest mrs.lotte felt the same until she visited the school.

I guess that's the key.

Visiting a school as well as reading the reports and deciding whether you think your child will be happy at a particular school and have great learning experiences. Heber was in this situation a few years back. It turned the corner long before the reports and parents word of mouth realised. My gut instinct is Goose Green has turned that corner.

[hoipolloi]

I think it's unfortunate that in order to make a point about the fact that some schools in the area are better than others (hardly news, is it?) people insist on referring to Goose Green in such a negative way, including by selectively quoting from old Ofsted reports. This kind of scaremongering is not helpful to anyone. Some people will be allocated Goose Green school. Many of them will have chosen it because they have older children or friends with children already there and know that it has a lot to offer. Those who did not choose it will hopefully go and meet the head and look around and make their own minds up. If they don't, it will be their loss. I dismissed it when making my daughters' application purely on the basis of the Ofsted report at the time but when I looked round I was very pleasantly surprised. We turned down places at 2 private schools in favour of Goose Green (because I felt it was important that my daughters went to a local school) and we have never regretted it. My daughters are really really happy there. The teaching and pastoral care in reception is exemplary. My girls attend the after school club where they mix with children of all ages up to year 6 and without exception they are delightful - I have been particularly impressed with the way in which the older children look after the younger ones. So if you are allocated Goose Green please don't rule it out without at least going to look around.

[bonaome]

Anyone who is reading this and who might be applying (again) next year may want to read the proposals for co-ordinated admissions for primary for Sept 2011 and onwards, and how Southwark plan to integrate with it, which can be found here.

There's nothing to stop anyone accepting a primary place anywhere and then changing their mind. There couldn't be, as any attempt to do so would run aground the first time someone pitches up with a genuine, unforseeable change in circumstances.

@misticnutmeg: There's obviously a lot of people with a lot of different circumstances in our community. Going through this application process, by and large what we want for our child, is for her to be schooled in a safe environment, where discrimination of all kinds is challenged, and where kids are valued for the people they are. I think most parents feel like that. Really, one of the main purposes of primary school education is learning to get along with all the different people you encounter in life. Including those rolling in dosh, and those not so well off. It's a very valuable lesson for our children; to not jump to conclusions about people based on their age, sex, sexuality, race, marital status, presence or otherwise of tattoos and whatever their postcode might be.

[Fuschia]

My reason for linking to Goose Green's reports isn't to say it's not an improving school, it clearly is, and the new leadership team are making good inroads (though the LA's support warrants a less favourable mention, I notice) but because I felt James Barber, in saying the problems at the school revolved around the need for a new door, was trivialising an issue which is a real concern to parents.

I am someone who DOES believe our children have a right to a good school within close walking distance, and the responsibility of the LA is to provide sufficient such places, both in quantity and by supporting schools that are weak. To disregard the fact that, despite recent changes, GG hasn't yet come out of special measures, is to do a disservice.

[hoipolloi]

You said it Fuschia - Goose Green is an improving school and to continue that improvement it needs the support of the local community and does not need to be the subject of negative comments on this forum - of course you are concerned about the schools situation in ED and that is entirely understandable. I only ask that you please consider the possible wider impact of your comments.

[toast]

Sorry James have to comment on this...

> Last year 90% of on time applications were

> allocated a school within 1 mile of home. The

> remaining 10% were siblings for schools where the

> parents had moved or religious schools where we'll

> never be able to provide schools of all faiths

> within 1 mile. For late or subsequently changed

> applications 80%.

This was only after a summer of hell for parents allocated places only after a last min bulge class at Goodrich. There was a great deal of movement in the first month of term. This bulge needed Tessa and local parents putting some serious pressure on the council. The scrutiny only happened due to Labours influence and it was only then that the council started taking the thing seriously. The late allocation this year combined with Lewishams deadline of the 5th May means an extra month of chaos for us and neighbouring boroughs as families will have been forced to accept places in neighbouring boroughs they may well not want as they don't know about Southwark.

Lewisham saw a shortage this year and arranged 13-17? bulge classes in time for allocations without fuss or putting families through the mill.

I spent a lovely sociable day with different groups of people from South Norwood, Honor Oak and East Dulwich. Out of 8 families, from 3 boroughs I was the only one not to know which school we were going to. An unfortunate coincidence.

[Fuschia]

hoipolloi Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> You said it Fuschia - Goose Green is an improving

> school and to continue that improvement it needs

> the support of the local community and does not

> need to be the subject of negative comments on

> this forum - of course you are concerned about the

> schools situation in ED and that is entirely

> understandable. I only ask that you please

> consider the possible wider impact of your

> comments.

I didn't comment about it at all. I just looked up the OFSTED reports as what James Barber said was obviously nonsense!

I think I've posted about in in previous discussions to say that Heber was in special measures not long ago, and encouraging people to opt for their closest school.

[TP]

Hear hear hoipolloi! I won't say any more on the scaremongering subject, you & AJM have covered it. Personally having originally been offered a school over 2 miles & 2 bus rides away in North Peckham last year I was delighted to get into GG from the waiting list & I have a very happy boy in reception, and he's thriving educationally as well.Got offered my first choice after term started but didn't take it.

I don't envy parents at this time, the system is far from perfect & when you're waiting to hear about places it's incredibly stressful. Not getting your first choice school (or any of your choices) isn't always the end of the world as I found out, but I hope you all do! For those on the border it must be doubly frustrating but bonaome's advice is sound- take up your Lewisham offer if it doesn't affect the Southwark one (not sure on this but think it's covered earlier in the thread), from experience the admissions departments expect lists to change in the "shakedown" before the end of summer term anyway. Just remember to cancel your Lewisham place if you get the school you want!

[Fuschia]

hoipolloi Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think it's unfortunate that in order to make a

> point about the fact that some schools in the area

> are better than others (hardly news, is it?)

If you mean me, that wasn't the point I was making at all. I was picking up James Barber's comments about OFSTED focussing on the wrong things. The actual reports issued by OFSTED focus very much on teaching and learning, not links with businesses or knocking through of doors (!)