Primary school catchment map - 2014/15

[espelli]

We will be applying for a reception place for 2016. The expansion has been talked about as a definite for a while and was part of Southwark's school places plan so I am surprised to hear that it seems not to have been agreed at governor level. Hopefully Renata will be able to shed some light on it.

[landsberger]

It has indeed been a definite expansion, but it looks as if the school are having 2nd thoughts.

[Groveland]

Thank you for this - do you have a similar one for secondary schools in the area?

[Zedd]

We also live on Marmora Rd and will be looking at primary admission for Sept 2017 as we have no plans to move house before then. I had thought that between Harris ED opening, the Belham (?) site of DVIS (is it DVIS?I could easily be wrong), the Ivydale expansion (and is there another expansion/ site shift/ free school I have forgotten?) that perhaps catchment areas might shift around a bit as children who would previously have gone to other schools will now go to them? Or am I being hopelessly naive? It's so frustrating that LA are no longer allowed to actually plan for the number of places needed in useful locations.

[afurgal]

This is awesome. Where did you get the data for Goose Green - I don't see it on the data table in the southwark council admission PDF (it's in the academy section and does not have the distance info in the table). Many thanks.

[lollol]

This table does not include all schools so is potentially misleading for people that are not familiar with the area i.e. moving into the area. For example, for us, it only shows 1 option when there are 2 - one of which is an outstanding school! So beware!

[mistermister]

Re Ivydale and expansion

My understanding is that (to use a metaphor) Ivydale School will be the tenant and Southwark will be the landlord of the new site. Any delay in construction of the site is the responsibility of the Landlord, not the tenant. So it would not be Ivydale school delaying expansion, but issues with building.

In terms of offering an additional bulge class if the new site is not ready for Sept 2016, then that would be a discussion between governors and the LA. Although it should be noted that Ivydale has bulged twice recently and many parents feel the school is already at maximum capacity. The governors are there to act in the best interest of pupils at the school.

[landsberger]

mistermister Wrote:

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

> My understanding is that (to use a metaphor)

> Ivydale School will be the tenant and Southwark

> will be the landlord of the new site.

Well, not really, Ivydale already belongs to Southwark.

> Any delay

> in construction of the site is the responsibility

> of the Landlord, not the tenant.

This would be the case if the tenant didn't block the expansion

> So it would not

> be Ivydale school delaying expansion, but issues

> with building.

This is true

> In terms of offering an additional bulge class if

> the new site is not ready for Sept 2016, then that

> would be a discussion between governors and the

> LA.

It is, although some governors oppose this

> Although it should be noted that Ivydale has

> bulged twice recently and many parents feel the

> school is already at maximum capacity.

It would take some creative use of space but is certainly possible

> The

> governors are there to act in the best interest of

> pupils at the school.

Doesn't mean they always do, though.

[mistermister]

Hmmm

I am not sure what to make of this response. The letter from the governors suggests that the delay in expansion is due to building issues. Are you suggesting that the governors are lying and that the delay is really down to the governors having second thoughts? Lying in a letter like this would be a very serious issue indeed. I do not believe the governors, including the headteacher, would lie in this way. As such I think any delay in expansion cannot be blamed on the school. If you have proof that the governors have deliberately delayed expansion, then I think you need to present this.

Re the school belonging to Southwark. It is true that the school is LA maintained, but is funded by the tax payer so arguably belongs to the people. The GB is responsible for the conduct and direction of the school. A GB can decide to leave LA control if it wishes, so the sense that the school belongs to Southwark needs quite a lot of clarification.

It is true that Governors (in general) might not always act in the best interest of the pupils at the school, though I am sure that most GBs try to do this. I am also sure that not all Local Authorities act in best interest of pupils ? though no doubt they try. Bulging may be in the interest of the parents (and pupils) who might want to come to the school, but not necessarily in the interest of the pupils at the school. It depends on what you consider the remit of the GB to be.

Re ?some governors oppose this?. I am not sure how you would know this, as I do not think that their views are in the public domain. Either you are a governor at the school or (more likely from your other posts) you are someone senior in the LA. In either case I am not sure that the use of the forum in this way to spread such confidential views is morally appropriate (assuming that they are even the true view of the governors).

Do you work for the LA?

[mistermister]

Also Ivydale has bulged twice recently. Once at the request of the LA and once preemptively as there were a large number of siblings expected. Ivydale is certainly not a school that has resisted bulging.

Obviously it is not the case that bulging is always in the best interest of a school ? otherwise all schools would constantly bulge. Whether it is in the best interest or not will be a decision involving lots of factors, including space, capacity, pupil flow, standards etc. It is right that any GB would consider these factors carefully. So even if it is true, as you suggest, that some governors are not keen on bulging, then this is probably just an indication of a GB doing due diligence and reaching rational conclusions. To portray the GB as an anti bulge GB is clearly false because of their track record.

Reading between the lines I suspect that you work for the LA. The LA and contractors have messed up in terms of their completion dates and the LA somehow want to paint this mess up as the fault of the GB. Because of this mess up there will be pressure on Ivydale to bulge again, which many parents/governors/staff/pupils would rightly have reservations about. Someone at the LA wants to portray the GB as somehow to blame; which I really don't believe they are.

[landsberger]

From the governor feedback I have been privy to, there is some disquiet about the expansion as some governors think (and have always thought) the school at an intake level of 120 would be too big. They are using the building issues as an excuse to try and put off expansion. There are building issues, and there's no denying that. Whether the school or council could have anticipated these is moot. I don't think anyone is "lying" here, but that's not to say a few people are not using existing circumstances to advance their own agendas. No-one is blaming the whole governing body here, I don't think there's any evidence of that. And it's one thing taking a bulge occasionally and expanding to double the school's size.

Southwark Council own the school - period. The lease of the site lies with the LA, not Ivydale governors - there's no legal grey area here. It is part of the Council's assets. Yes, ultimately it's part of state ownership, and the DFE can so dictate that the land be handed over to whosoever it chooses, but, for legal purposes, and more importantly, liability, it is Southwark property.

No, I do not work for the LA. I am sure, if Southwark's employment regulations are anything like other councils, or other employers, I would be in serious trouble if I was their employee and spouting these opinions here.

Nor am I an Ivydale governor - although I do strongly suspect you yourself are one, though - you're probably aware that a similar code of conduct applies there and at other schools, and I think any governor giving identifiably personal opinions here would soon not be a governor of the school for much longer. It is however, amazing what a little digging, a light use of Freedom of Information requests, and contacts in the right places does reveal.

[mistermister]

How could the school have anticipated the building issues? Are you suggesting that the school could have done something to have helped expansion in 2016 take place as was initially proposed? What do you think the relationship between the school and the building contractors is? The building of the school and other works has been contracted by Southwark.

Again, your email is misleading. The school can in no way be blamed if expansion is delayed through building work. This is not the fault of the school. Period. It is not a moot point.

You seem to have access to the thinking of Ivydale Governors, and, it would seem from the forums, also a detailed insight into most schools in the LA. You also seem to champion the cause of Southwark at every opportunity, yet you claim not to work for the LA. Interesting.

[landsberger]

There's been no suggestion here that either the council, the contractors, or the school could have anticipated the problems that have occurred. What is different to how some people have reacted to the news.

I'm intrigued about your allegation that I possess "a detailed insight into most schools in the LA" - on the basis of a few postings in EDF? Well, I'm flattered but it's not the verite. Such knowledge I have is circumscribed by the operating area of this forum. You have also countered that I "champion the cause of Southwark at every opportunity". Well, I champion the cause of my favourite football club but that doesn't make me a footballer or board member (sadly). Could it be that I am just a supporter of good, local authority led education? And think Southwark do it well ?

[midivydale]

Renata, are there any news on this? Is Ivydale likely to bulge this year? If so when will that information be available? Clearly many parents with children in 2016 intake were hoping for places at Ivydale due to an expansion. I am not personally affected by this so no hidden agenda, I was just curious.

[Renata Hamvas]

I'm still waiting on confirmation on what is the situation with Ivydale for 2016.

Once I know for sure, I'll post back on this thread,

Renata

[midivydale]

Thanks Renata, much appreciated!

[midivydale]

Hi Renata,

Is there an update on Ivydale 2016 intake?

[landsberger]

90 pupils for reception in September 2016, apparently, so someone at the school told me. And 30 more the year after that.