Jump to content

Recommended Posts

'Duchess of Dulwich' - I think you're referring to me. I'm a Goodrich parent. I just don't have much time to post on this forum, which is why I only posted once. Anyway, I regret my original post as on consideration don't think discussion on this forum is helpful. It's basically gossip. Better to attend the meeting on the 1st to understand what the concerns are and judge things through my son's experience (he is happy, thriving and learning a lot).

I'm really pleased to have received some posts on Goose Green which came out of special measures recently. Formally known as Grove Vale School before the makeover it seemed almost for ever to have been the under dog in Dulwich.

To have turned round and compete for the leadership of best school in Dulwich so quickly can not be due alone to the additional amounts of funding thrown at the school.

Even from the limited number of posts on this forum and from local opinion it must have taken a great deal of effort from their new management, governors, students and parents to pull together as a team to achieve this outstanding result.

This success, built on teamwork, should be an inspiration to other schools that ALL parts of a team must stay related and pull together otherwise things will get pulled apart.



I haven't heard much about Heber. I don't think they went so far as special measures but they certainly have upped their game and have a waiting list for admissions.

Can anyone give any better information please?

I agree with LynP, I often hear so much negativity and snide remarks (from those that see themselves as parenting elite) and it spreads like wildfire. I think the staff do a great job and always try to accommodate parents needs. The staff should be supported more by the parent governors more and those with grievances should use appropriate channels within the school system / Southwark C to air complaints. NOT all parents the way you do and I am ashamed that you presume to sum up the views of other parents through your comments. This forum has been viewed over 6,000 times I want my child to feel proud of being at this school despite these behind the scene remarks.
Justaparent, the family that found the police on their doorstep courtesy of the head is one of the most committed families Goodrich has ever known, giving hours of their time and their considerable expertise to help raise a huge amount of money for the school. and their reward was untold stress and misery. That's the truth. So fecking sue me.

No offence Emily but I'm sure the school already has considerable expertise and were maybe fed up with being undermined by parents who think they know it all. I can imagine parents like that making a big impact on staff moral who spend every day teaching a lot of children.


Just an outsiders point of view.

I took myself off this thread but I see that it continued with ignorant mudslinging at concerned Goodrich parents by people that I doubt have done a fraction as much for the school as those whose situation is causing such concern to some of us. How many hours have you given to the school in volunteer fundraising?
It continued because other Goodrich parents wanted to have their say on the positives of the school. It seems like you're presuming if a parent isn't 'concerned' then they somehow don't care. Maybe the 'concerned' parents should get a life and let the schools do their job. If you want to raise money for a school fine but do it out of goodwill not because you want greater power or say in how the school is run. It's simply not your job. And if not everyone is 'concerned' that means that maybe you're overstating the supposed problems. By the way, what are your problems exactly?
Nobody wanted greater 'power', the fundraising was done for many years out of pure goodwill actually. And was highly effective and beneficial for children. Many of things that one poster attributed to the school (whiteboards, books etc) were the result of parent-led fundraising. And the thread did not continue with people just being positive about the school. the posts were more concerned with spiteful, ignorant mudslinging at people who have been committed to the school for years.
  • Administrator

OK, I asked for people to tone it down but they didn't listen and carried on like I wasn't in the room. So sorry but I am forced to removed all the posts because of concerns raised and complaints about too many specific details given about individuals and organisations.


This is the Family Room Area which has a "lower tolerance of abuse than the rest of the forum" and I will not tolerate discussions becoming mud-slinging matches between unknown individuals discussing named third parties, that is unfair. Both myself and the Family Room Moderator are sat here ready to expel anyone who continues to make the Family Room a rather uncomfortable place to be in.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Had council stock not been sold off then it wouldn't have needed replacing. Whilst I agree that the prohibition on spending revenue from sales on new council housing was a contributory factor, where, in places where building land is scarce and expensive such as London, would these replacement homes have been built. Don't mention infill land! The whole right to buy issue made me so angry when it was introduced and I'm still fuming 40 odd years later. If I could see it was just creating problems for the future, how come Thatcher didn't. I suspect though she did, was more interested in buying votes, and just didn't care about a scarcity of housing impacting the next generations.
    • Actually I don't think so. What caused the problem was the ban on councils using the revenues from sales to build more houses. Had councils been able to reinvest in more housing then we would have had a boom in building. And councils would have been relieved, through the sales, of the cost of maintaining old housing stock. Thatcher believed that council tenants didn't vote Conservative, and home owners did. Which may have been, at the time a correct assumption. But it was the ban on councils building more from the sales revenues which was the real killer here. Not the sales themselves. 
    • I agree with Jenjenjen. Guarantees are provided for works and services actually carried out; they are not an insurance policy for leaks anywhere else on the roof. Assuming that the rendering at the chimney stopped the leak that you asked the roofer to repair, then the guarantee will cover that rendering work. Indeed, if at some time in the future it leaked again at that exact same spot but by another cause, that would not be covered. Failure of rendering around a chimney is pretty common so, if re-rendering did resolve that leak, there is no particular reason to link it to the holes in the felt elsewhere across the roof. 
    • Hey, I am on the first floor and I am directly impacted if roof leaks. We got a roofing company to do repair work which was supposed to be guaranteed. However, when it started leaking again, we were informed that the guarantee is just for a new roof and not repair work. Each time the company that did the repair work came out again over the next few years, we had to pay additional amounts. The roof continues to leak, so I have just organised another company to fix the roof instead, as the guarantee doesn't mean anything. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...