Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Goose Green School Primary School has launched a fundraising campaign for the installation of a pre-grown screen of ivy to help protect its pupils from the toxic emissions which are being released by vehicles travelling along Grove Vale which runs adjacent to its playground. (This is an issue for lots of London schools).


Our campaign has been shortlisted for a potential grant of ?21k. The winner of the grant will be the project which receives the most public votes of support. Please help protect our children and help support this community campaign by registering and voting for our project at:


https://goo.gl/Cd4Hxr - a 2 minute job which could make an enormous difference to the long-term health of the children.


For more information about the campaign please see: http://www.goosegreenprimaryschool.org/files/news/gg-greeneryproject-04-june-2017.pdf


If there is any way whatsoever that you think you may be able to help our cause, please do. We would love for you to share our campaign voting link on your website/Twitter/Facebook and generally spread the word to your followers on our behalf.


Thank you


Friends of Goose Green School

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/163043-we-need-your-help/
Share on other sites

What a great idea.

What an awfully large amount of money.

Can it not be done cheaper? Can't you get two for your money?

Why not just plant lots of privet bushes? (See below.)

Really - I am not kidding. I just can't believe it needs to cost that much, as much as I think it is a worthy idea and one that would inspire others.


Roger Harrabin, BBC enviro correspondent, has written this. (Similar articles are available at The Telegraph and Evening Standard sites) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39943197

Hedges of a certain height and trees that don't form a canopy seem to do the trick.

shell Wrote:

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

> Good luck! but if you don't get it how about fake

> ivy or conifer screening? Not as pretty perhaps

> but no maintenance moving forward and about a

> tenner per square meter.


I'm guessing because real plants absorb toxins and fake ones don't?

I really think that if those people are giving you money to plant a ?21K hedge then they ought to - at the same time or instead of - stop driving so much. I am afraid this looks symbolic and tokenistic - which would be fine if it were much cheaper and still as effective (see privet suggestion).

I don't own a car (haven't for almost twenty years) and walk and use public transport mostly; I pester the council for better upkeep and more planting of trees and more green spaces, so it's not as if I am ranting wildly with no context or sympathy. I just can't give my support to this because it smacks of gesture over efficacy and is way too dear.

It may not be in the spirit of the thing, but I must say I agree with Nigello: we should be concentrating on stopping the source of pollution, not trying to build a screen against it. I'd far sooner ?21,000 was spent on the school instituting schemes to encourage greener behaviour in terms of getting to school - walking buses etc maybe? Also, ivy grows like an absolute bugger if the continual battle we have with it on our back garden wall is anything to go by, surely a pupil-led project to grow their own protection would be a really exciting one for them?


Sorry if this seems curmudgeonly, but it sounds like a sticking plaster over a gaping wound solution to me - and I think actually sends the wrong message out to children that pollution is a fact of life against which we must protect ourselves as best we can, rather than something we need to eradicate.


I'd love this splendid school to have an extra ?21K, but for better projects than this.

Great idea. I've submitted my vote. Hope the school is successful. I know the school has had several gardening and environmental education initiatives over the years as my son was a student at GG. They received funding for the eight fruit trees in the playground which the children over the years have looked after and which produce fruit. They have an established forest school programme with kids going to Lettsom Gardens every week. There is s vegetable container garden. Bird boxes for swifts were built by students and then installed near the eaves to encourage swift nesting. The Wildlife Garden Centre was involved in developing the area near the fence to have a more biodiversity wildlife area. I think the school has done more than most in regards to environmental education - particularly considering the small playground space in a developed urban area.


However, the car pollution issue needs specific planting as has been discussed above. A fully grown ivy fence/screen would take 3 years at least to grow so a more immediate solution is needed. The funding is coming from an insurance company - so not public funds.

Thanks for the interesting debate on this already. All valid points and ones which, of course, we have discussed at length amongst ourselves.


Yes it is expensive. The grant would cover the cost of the pre-grown panels (a shocking approx. 87m worth of them, to screen the whole border!) and the installation and maintenance thereof (to insure longevity). The expense lies in the fact that these are already approx. 2m high mature ivy plants, which have been pre-grown in a nursery and will simply be fitted in place.


The fence we need to screen is directly where the children play so we struggle to grow any new saplings (believe me, we've tried) because of flying footballs etc from the playing children. Also, hedges, newly planted ivy etc etc take years to grow and are very delicate initially. Parents are more than happy to support a project they know they will benefit from immediately. A pre-grown ivy screen can make as much as a 40% reduction in nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter as soon as it is installed (e.g the day after fitting!) and the benefits continue as it thickens.


Goose Green has been amazing at green initiatives over the years (as Coach Beth has so eloquently put) and these are all making a difference. This grant would come from a private company, as also mentioned by Beth, so would not be able to be spent elsewhere in the system.


We wholeheartedly agree that the root cause needs to be addressed and not just the issue. Interestingly, this initiative in itself seems to be enough to get the conversation flowing between families of the school (green routes to school, less driving, neighbourhood greening, joining class actions and lobbying groups for diesel drivers, for example). We are also working with the school and, via the school council, the children/families to discuss why such an initiative is necessary in the first place and what can be done about the root cause. We feel that this conversation/action is all important and we are calling it "Putting the 'Green' into Goose Green".


However, in the shorter term, considering the benefit to the current and future children of the school, their families and other local families, we feel that this screen would be a very worthwhile achievement, particularly if we won this grant and the whole thing were paid for by this wonderful foundation.


Thanks for your input and time.


Friends of Goose Green School

It does sound like a lot of thought has gone into it, so that is encouraging. The fact it is coming from a private source is also welcome.

I think RH's point that it may teach children - and their parents - that pollution just has to be dealt with after it has happened is valid.

I do hope that opinions and habits will be changed - good luck!

(I love the trees in the school already - but some need to be clipped back: a twig in the eye isn't nice!)

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

    • Absolute mugs. That's what they take you for.  
    • Trossachs definitely have one! 
    • A A day-school for girls and a boarding school for boys (even with, by the late '90s, a tiny cadre of girls) are very different places.  Though there are some similarities. I think all schools, for instance, have similar "rules", much as they all nail up notices about "potential" and "achievement" and keeping to the left on the stairs. The private schools go a little further, banging on about "serving the public", as they have since they were set up (either to supply the colonies with District Commissioners, Brigadiers and Missionaries, or the provinces with railway engineers), so they've got the language and rituals down nicely. Which, i suppose, is what visitors and day-pupils expect, and are expected, to see. A boarding school, outside the cloistered hours of lesson-times, once the day-pupils and teaching staff have been sent packing, the gates and chapel safely locked and the brochures put away, becomes a much less ambassadorial place. That's largely because they're filled with several hundred bored, tired, self-supervised adolescents condemned to spend the night together in the flickering, dripping bowels of its ancient buildings, most of which were designed only to impress from the outside, the comfort of their occupants being secondary to the glory of whatever piratical benefactor had, in a last-ditch attempt to sway the judgement of their god, chucked a little of their ill-gotten at the alleged improvement of the better class of urchin. Those adolescents may, to the curious eyes of the outer world, seem privileged but, in that moment, they cannot access any outer world (at least pre-1996 or thereabouts). Their whole existence, for months at a time, takes place in uniformity behind those gates where money, should they have any to hand, cannot purchase better food or warmer clothing. In that peculiar world, there is no difference between the seventh son of a murderous sheikh, the darling child of a ball-bearing magnate, the umpteenth Viscount Smethwick, or the offspring of some hapless Foreign Office drone who's got themselves posted to Minsk. They are egalitarian, in that sense, but that's as far as it goes. In any place where rank and priviilege mean nothing, other measures will evolve, which is why even the best-intentioned of committees will, from time to time, spawn its cliques and launch heated disputes over archaic matters that, in any other context, would have long been forgotten. The same is true of the boarding school which, over the dismal centuries, has developed a certain culture all its own, with a language indended to pass all understanding and attitiudes and practices to match. This is unsurprising as every new intake will, being young and disoriented, eagerly mimic their seniors, and so also learn those words and attitudes and practices which, miserably or otherwise, will more accurately reflect the weight of history than the Guardian's style-guide and, to contemporary eyes and ears, seem outlandish, beastly and deplorably wicked. Which, of course, it all is. But however much we might regret it, and urge headteachers to get up on Sundays and preach about how we should all be tolerant, not kill anyone unnecessarily, and take pity on the oiks, it won't make the blindest bit of difference. William Golding may, according to psychologists, have overstated his case but I doubt that many 20th Century boarders would agree with them. Instead, they might look to Shakespeare, who cheerfully exploits differences of sex and race and belief and ability to arm his bullies, murderers, fraudsters and tyrants and remains celebrated to this day,  Admittedly, this is mostly opinion, borne only of my own regrettable experience and, because I had that experience and heard those words (though, being naive and small-townish, i didn't understand them till much later) and saw and suffered a heap of brutishness*, that might make my opinion both unfair and biased.  If so, then I can only say it's the least that those institutions deserve. Sure, the schools themselves don't willingly foster that culture, which is wholly contrary to everything in the brochures, but there's not much they can do about it without posting staff permanently in corridors and dormitories and washrooms, which would, I'd suggest, create a whole other set of problems, not least financial. So, like any other business, they take care of the money and keep aloof from the rest. That, to my mind, is the problem. They've turned something into a business that really shouldn't be a business. Education is one thing, raising a child is another, and limited-liability corporations, however charitable, tend not to make the best parents. And so, in retrospect, I'm inclined not to blame the students either (though, for years after, I eagerly read the my Old School magazine, my heart doing a little dance at every black-edged announcement of a yachting tragedy, avalanche or coup). They get chucked into this swamp where they have to learn to fend for themselves and so many, naturally, will behave like predators in an attempt to fit in. Not all, certainly. Some will keep their heads down and hope not to be noticed while others, if they have a particular talent, might find that it protects them. But that leaves more than enough to keep the toxic culture alive, and it is no surprise at all that when they emerge they appear damaged to the outside world. For that's exactly what they are. They might, and sometimes do, improve once returned to the normal stream of life if given time and support, and that's good. But the damage lasts, all the same, and isn't a reason to vote for them. * Not, if it helps to disappoint any lawyers, at Dulwich, though there's nothing in the allegations that I didn't instantly recognise, 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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