Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I followed James Barber's thread on Charter's admissions changes with interest as I have a child in year five and live in the Champion Hill area.


I have just checked the school's website and they have put up a new draft policy for next year. I am disappointed that the school has not adopted the 'straight line distance' measurement, as suggested. Instead, the only change to their policy appears to be the removal of the sentence that used to tell you which map they use. It seems to me that they are being deliberately vague about the routes which they are using.


Does anyone have any ideas about how to go about ensuring that the school follows the adjudicator's ruling?


Would any of our local councillors be able to help with this?

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/22169-charter-admissions-201213/
Share on other sites

straight line distance is a total change in policy though and I'm not aware of any Southwark schools that apply it. It also doesn't really benefit anyone as it has it's own issues associated with it - the issue we have is that there is no consistent admission applied to all schools in London.


the adjudication was that they must use the Wanley Road cut-through as part of the safe walking distance so that should be applied - and you would have grounds for appeal if you are the parent / guardian of the 180 students closest to the school by 'safest walking distance' and they haven't used it

hillbillie I think the recent change to the wording is so that the way in which the school administers their stated current policy conforms to the adjudicator's ruling .

I don't think they have time to change the policy ( the'd have to consult etc ) for this year's admissions .

Thanks intexasatthemoment, I've just noticed that I have made a mistake: I should have put Admissions 2013/14, as that is the year we would be applying for. I'm sure it would be too late for them to make a big change to this year's applications as the school offers are due out next week.

In the Adjudicator's report tho, it does suggest that they might want to change to straight line measurement for the folowing year (2013/14). It also says that they need to ensure clarity. My concern is that they have actually reduced clarity by removing the information about which map they are using.

By the way, Curmudgeon, I know that Southwark has switched to using straight line measurement for its primary applications, as a way of reducing the number of appeals similar to the Wanley Road one. I'm not sure about secondaries, I'm just beginning to venture down that frightening path.

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

    • With slightly less respect  I have  watched the 1 hour video - he said what he said and he did what he did. And his faux-wink wink “no violence people” fools no one but fools. Are you a fool?    the bbc told the truth - and it’s a straight up lie to say otherwise. Did they wdit and cut to the chase to make a point? Absolutely  and correctly  he was not edited to say things he didn’t say 
    • Friends and family in the 'States always say how wonderful it is to be in Britain and see our news coverage.  It's all partisan out there. The BBC manages to simultaneously p off the left and the right so must be doing something right.
    • From the BBC: "The conclusion of that deliberation is that we accept that the way the speech was edited did give the impression of a direct call for violent action. The BBC would like to apologise for that error of judgement." What is wrong is editing someone to make him say something they didn't.  With respect Sephiroth, this is something I know a bit about and I have encountered, over the last decade, people in programming editing contributors to make them say things they didn't, the end point being to hang them out to dry. It's happening more and more and it's my job to make sure that people on TV are not mis-represented, but shown in their true light so that viewers can make up their own minds. You have no idea what goes on behind the scenes and how hard some us fight to keep things impartial.  It's also worth mentioning that I have personally lost work because of Trump suing US networks, and that's one of the lesser reasons why I'd like to see him gone.  But broadcasters have a moral obligation to tell the truth and that's the hill that most decent professionals in the industry are willing to die on. Otherwise, how can the viewing public trust anything that's beamed into their living rooms? 
    • Amazing work from Leon, doing out electrical survey and replacing our consumer board. Great communications, tidy work, reliable friendly and reasonably priced. A pleasure to have around and highly recommended. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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