'Charter East Dulwich' Consultation - call for unity

[colabottle]

championofthehill Wrote:

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

> > I would like to make it clear that the area around

> the Dog Kennel Hill Estate and the Champion Hill

> and Cleve Hall Estates are currently largely

> excluded from Charter Red Post Hill's catchment

> due to its shortest safe walking route policy. If

> the new Charter's nodal point is shifted to the

> south of the proposed point in Jarvis Road, these

> children will, once again, find themselves

> disadvantaged in the school's admissions policy.

I would suggest that Charter Red Post Hill be held to account for this policy that excludes the estates mentioned, and change their policy to "as the crow flies" in line with Charter ED.

>

> I do not have children who will benefit from this,

> mine are all older so I have seen at first hand

> how difficult this process is for children in my

> area. I am not "in it for myself" and that

> accusation leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.

[Belle]

I don't think the OP has an axe to grind. I don't see why coming on here and calling for unity equals an axe to grind, and I think the OP is one of several who has said they are likely to get in to the new school whatever happens, but want to make some points regarding the community.

I wasn't at the Heber meeting, but if you're talking about people being told to keep quiet, it sounded as though there was a fair bit of shouting down happening there. I don't think that's what is happening here, however.

[HannahSE23]

championofthehill Wrote:

> I would like to make it clear that the area around

> the Dog Kennel Hill Estate and the Champion Hill

> and Cleve Hall Estates are currently largely

> excluded from Charter Red Post Hill's catchment

> due to its shortest safe walking route policy. If

> the new Charter's nodal point is shifted to the

> south of the proposed point in Jarvis Road, these

> children will, once again, find themselves

> disadvantaged in the school's admissions policy.

Ditto the children of much of ED and Nunhead if the nodal point remains at Jarvis Road. So your point is??

[confusedbyitall]

championofthehill Wrote:

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

>

> >

> At the consultation meetings it was made clear

> that the Jarvis Road point was picked to minimise

> the overlap between the two Charter Schools.

The consultation period is still on going, interested parties are still submitting their views and opinions on what they would like the admissions criteria to be...the whole point of a consultation I thought? Jarvis rd is not set in stone and charter have made it clear they will share the results at a further meeting, I hope they don't back down on this.

>

> I would like to make it clear that the area around

> the Dog Kennel Hill Estate and the Champion Hill

> and Cleve Hall Estates are currently largely

> excluded from Charter Red Post Hill's catchment

> due to its shortest safe walking route policy. If

> the new Charter's nodal point is shifted to the

> south of the proposed point in Jarvis Road, these

> children will, once again, find themselves

> disadvantaged in the school's admissions policy.

I didn't realise the new school was proposed for those children, where has that been stated in charters submission? the whole of ED has fought and backed this new school...please stop this divisory talk

>

> I do not have children who will benefit from this,

> mine are all older so I have seen at first hand

> how difficult this process is for children in my

> area. I am not "in it for myself" and that

> accusation leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.

Don't take it so personally then.

[intexasatthe moment]

As has been said many times supporting the creation of a new school does not confer any priority when it comes to getting a place .

championofthehill makes perfectly valid points highlighting a geographical area that may be disadvantaged by a particular nodal point . hoonaloona's post ( unintentionally I imagine ) underlines this .

There's no suggestion that the new school was proposed only for the area around the Dog Kennel Hill Estate and the Champion Hill and Cleve Hall Estates . Seems divisive to suggest that there has.

"I would suggest that Charter Red Post Hill be held to account for this policy that excludes the estates mentioned, and change their policy to "as the crow flies" in line with Charter ED.2 "

No easy task .A small group of parents and a local legal eagle put in hours and hours and hours of hard work ( not to mention enduring the inevitable hostility from the school and other parents ) to get the Charter school to implement their existing admissions policy correctly .

The group was successful and the adjudicator's report unequivocal. The school could have chosen that time to move to straight line admission and to do away with the ambiguous safe walking distance .Instead it chose to express it's views on autonomy and the adjudicator's report in the South London Press . So I think it would be a hard task to get the school to move to straight line admission. But I might be wrong ,different head now .

[LondonMix]

Consultation about the admissions policy is really about deciding between at times conflicting aims such as making intake academically comprehensive, ensuring access for all regardless of socio-economics, SEN priority etc. etc.

There are a few recognised admissions policies with different aims that are fair and the consultation should try to understand what the community prioritises as concerns these aims. Lottery, banding, SEN priority, siblings etc.

However, the admission consultation process is NOT a vote to see who get in. I hope people realise that lots of support for creating a nodal point offsite in the South or East of SE22 / Nunhead is by no means any justification in and of itself for granting one.

Regardless of the outcome of the consultation, Charter is legally bound to follow the Admission Code and the supporting published guidance. These rules apply to ALL state funded schools including free schools / academies.

[intexasatthe moment]

" Charter is legally bound to follow the Admission Code and the supporting published guidance. "

True .But it's also true that for over 12 years the school didn't implement it's admission policy correctly ,choosing to exclude certain pedestrian routes . And this was despite appeals on this point by some tenacious parents being upheld by Southwark .

[LondonMix]

I agree. The good news is the government has changed the process so it is much easier and one can go directly to the Adjudicator. You don't even need to be parent or be directly impacted to bring the issue to the Adjudicator's attention.

Personally I think Southwark is terrible. They could be doing a lot more and a lot better. Lewisham is a great example of how a well run LA can still coordinate and influence admissions in its borough.

[intexasatthe moment]

On the note of taking things personally - surely all of us posting are taking things personally enough to be motivated to express our view ? Why shouldn't people take things personally ?

championofthehill made the point that she/he wouldn't gain or loose in terms of an offspring gaining a place ,perhaps that sort of post has a wider motivation ,an interest in the bigger picture ?

[intexasatthe moment]

I don't think there was a problem with going to the adjudicator ,a problem that it had to get to that point maybe .

[LondonMix]

I don't think we disagree. The Adjudicator is concerned about the number of non-compliant schools (not always concerning admission policy per se but other elements of the Admission Code that aren't adhered to) and in the most recent published annual report said that the organisation is concerned it was only seeing a small portion of the infractions.

That too many schools don't follow the laws in the first place is a problem but at least there is a higher authority that will force schools to adhere. More direct oversight is needed and Southwark could perform this role via an Admissions Forum similar to Lewisham. While councils are no longer legally obliged to have one they still can and the Adjudicator's annual report suggests they do make a difference.

[LondonMix]

Also, if the debate has moved on to if the distance should be measured from either the centre of the school building or Jarvis Road, I'm surprised there is still so much strong feeling. The difference must be less than 100 yards...

[Trine Adams]

OPoster is indeed disappointed with they way people are behaving and would prefer it if the community worked together and not against each other.

[nicetomeetyou]

The community is, in fact, working together to make this school the best it can be - that's obvious from the threads here. They just also have different views on what the end result should be, which makes it messy. There is no one "right answer" that everyone will agree on. But there is a process by which the people who are making the decision can hear what people think. My worry is that the OP is talking about a very narrow section of the community. We all have different interpretations of community. Which is fine. No one is impartial. Let's just not be disingenuous about it.

People aren't all on the same page. Many people living in the wider community want to assure access to the new school, and the catchment area of the school will directly impact that opportunity. Other people want a diverse mix, or to ensure fairness in the way they define it. The government has also provided rules by which we need to abide. It's fine to work hard to advocate for your point of view, as individuals or groups.

But what do we do once the decision is made? It's great that we have such passionate people taking part in the consultation. Once this consultation ends, will we all work on the other hurdles like planning, school design, site layout, temporary site provision? I hope that we can channel this energy even beyond this one school into a hallmark for high-quality state-sponsored education.

[bawdy-nan]

I'm still waiting to see anything at all from this school about its proposed provision for children with SEN. Its vision waxes lyrical about the provision for the academically and musically gifted but says absolutely nothing at all about the provision for the near 20% of children who are identified as having some kind of special educational need (whether formally set out in an EHC or not).

The downgrading of the priority for children with exceptional medical and social need sings a pretty powerful song and the complete lack of reference to SEN in the vision document suggests that the people putting this together are partially sighted on this issue at best (and, frankly, for a team setting up a new school that's a worrying lack) and at worst presenting and constructing the school as the kind of place really not at all interested in children with any kind of additional needs.

Sufficient attention has been paid to what a child with an aptitude for languages might need such that an idea of what might be available to them is set out in the vision document as a kind of selling point to prospective supporters. I wonder whether the people planning the new school have made any consideration whatsoever about children with additional or special educational needs? Or perhaps this isn't considered a "selling" point.

Those children with SEN might well be musically talented, academically gifted or have a special gift for languages but will they be welcome at the school?

Perhaps, and one hopes, that this is merely a mistake in presentation and the team are indeed busily appointing SENCOs and planning how the school can enable all children to thrive but, from the outside, it really doesn't read or look that way at all. And that is both off-putting and extremely disappointing.

[Mick Mac]

I have responded to the consultation as below: (I don't think the nodal point will help those east of LL, who really do need a school for girls at least. Whilst others now have two Charter schools to choose from is rather unfair or missing the point of anew school...)

"I do not support the chosen nodal point in Jarvis Road, being too far north of the central SE22 area. The area south east of Lordship Lane, (southern end of Friern Road etc) which suffers from a lack of girls secondary school availability (1km to Harris Girls) and is an area that campaigned hard for a new school is not served well by this nodal point. However there is now a duplication of Charter school opportunity elsewhere.

We, as a family, are currently outside of the catchment for Charter 1 and based upon the Jarvis Road nodal point, are now likely to be outside the catchment for Charter 2 also, while others now have a choice of two Charter schools !

When I spoke about this duplication at one of the open evenings the panel failed to accept the point - the panel response was that another school can only result in more school places for East Dulwich.

Then please consider this example;

10 children living near Charter 1 (who would have gotten into Charter 1 previously anyway), but are closer to Charter 2, are each offered a place at both schools.

The children choose the nearer school, being Charter 2, this obviously frees up 10 places at Charter 1 (not Charter 2...)

Hence the catchment of Charter 1 is expanded by 10 places, but on all sides from its nodal point, to benefit Herne Hill, Dulwich Village, North Dulwich, Denmark Hill etc, and East Dulwich - hence in the case of people in both Charter catchments areas, the other areas surrounding Charter 1 have actually also benefitted from these 10 Charter 2 places and ED as a result only benefits marginally.

My proposal is that either

1) The Charter 2 school and the Charter 1 school have separately defined and non-overlapping catchment areas, or

2) a child within the catchment for Charter 1 is required to accept the offer at Charter 1 and free the place at Charter 2 for those in SE22 who previously did not have access to a Charter school - hence the school then serves the purpose of enhancing school places in East Dulwich and not Herne Hill etc which are already well catered for by Charter 1, or

3) the nodal point is moved to central se22 where it would be most beneficial, irrespective of where the school grounds actually are, with some accommodation made to the needs of Camberwell also which I think was mentioned as having an equal need to central East Dulwich."

[EDrant]

redjam Wrote:

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

> it dismays me to hear that some schools are trying to manipulate the outcome of

> the consultation by directing their parents as to what to write (if that is indeed true).

It is indeed true, below is an example (taken from an official school website):

"... the main issue now for Dog Kennel Hill parents is to ensure that the Nodal Point (the ?finish mark? when measuring distance from a child?s address to the school), remains as proposed in their application, in the far Northern corner of the school site, not the middle, not the south. This is the furthest point within the new school?s boundaries from the existing Charter School, so will ensure the least overlap with that school?s intake and a more diverse, more inclusive, fairer intake than other nodal points being proposed. It is also the best position for the nodal point to include as much of the current Dog Kennel Hill intake as possible. ..."

This was published in early June on http://dkh.org.uk/charter-school-east-dulwich-consultation.

For posterity, I have also attached a screenshot of the aforementioned page (un-edited version for memorially).

[EDrant]

Trine Adams Wrote:

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

> There is also SPACE Southwark, which is the

> steering group (set up via this forum) made up of

> East Dulwich school representatives to campaign

Regarding the SPACE Southwark group -- are they really that neutral? Who are the representatives?

I would love to know why the schools of East Dulwich were not made aware of their special events "Calling all Yr 4 and Yr 5 children!" (to build a secondary school)? See attachment "Charter-Lego-Meeting.pdf".

It does not look like SPACE Southwark was ever actually acting for the families of East Dulwich... seems our schools were not expected to take part as far back as when that event was being run.

[simonethebeaver]

I think you've got your wires crossed there. Children from schools across East Dulwich were there - each school had a time slot and a parent liaison organiser who worked with SPACE.

[hpsaucey]

bawdy-nan Wrote:

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

> I'm still waiting to see anything at all from this

> school about its proposed provision for children

> with SEN. Its vision waxes lyrical about the

> provision for the academically and musically

> gifted but says absolutely nothing at all about

> the provision for the near 20% of children who are

> identified as having some kind of special

> educational need (whether formally set out in an

> EHC or not).

>

> The downgrading of the priority for children with

> exceptional medical and social need sings a pretty

> powerful song and the complete lack of reference

> to SEN in the vision document suggests that the

> people putting this together are partially sighted

> on this issue at best (and, frankly, for a team

> setting up a new school that's a worrying lack)

> and at worst presenting and constructing the

> school as the kind of place really not at all

> interested in children with any kind of additional

> needs.

>

> Sufficient attention has been paid to what a child

> with an aptitude for languages might need such

> that an idea of what might be available to them is

> set out in the vision document as a kind of

> selling point to prospective supporters. I wonder

> whether the people planning the new school have

> made any consideration whatsoever about children

> with additional or special educational needs? Or

> perhaps this isn't considered a "selling" point.

>

> Those children with SEN might well be musically

> talented, academically gifted or have a special

> gift for languages but will they be welcome at the

> school?

>

> Perhaps, and one hopes, that this is merely a

> mistake in presentation and the team are indeed

> busily appointing SENCOs and planning how the

> school can enable all children to thrive but, from

> the outside, it really doesn't read or look that

> way at all. And that is both off-putting and

> extremely disappointing.

Bawdy-nan ... totally agree.

[intexasatthe moment]

Bawdy -nan you're absolutely right . I hope the talk of catchment areas doesn't distract from your points .

[Trine Adams]

This, teamed with letters (containing false information) sent to DKH parents, Lyndhurst and The Villa from a Councillor make me feel sick. As stated in OP, no school should lead others as to how to complete their consultation forms. As previously mentioned, a rift has been created. The poster campaign on the DKH Estate starts: 'URGENT: We need your help to ensure the new Charter School is for THIS local community' - the word 'this' being in bold and underlined, it then goes on to tell people how to respond to the consultation. So not 'Inclusive of the community' which the Charter school claims to to be. I've had enough really.

EDrant Wrote:

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

> redjam Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > it dismays me to hear that some schools are

> trying to manipulate the outcome of

> > the consultation by directing their parents as

> to what to write (if that is indeed true).

>

> It is indeed true, below is an example (taken from

> an official school website):

>

> "... the main issue now for Dog Kennel Hill

> parents is to ensure that the Nodal Point (the

> ?finish mark? when measuring distance from a

> child?s address to the school), remains as

> proposed in their application, in the far Northern

> corner of the school site, not the middle, not the

> south. This is the furthest point within the new

> school?s boundaries from the existing Charter

> School, so will ensure the least overlap with that

> school?s intake and a more diverse, more

> inclusive, fairer intake than other nodal points

> being proposed. It is also the best position for

> the nodal point to include as much of the current

> Dog Kennel Hill intake as possible. ..."

>

> This was published in early June on

> http://dkh.org.uk/charter-school-east-dulwich-cons

> ultation.

>

> For posterity, I have also attached a screenshot

> of the aforementioned page (un-edited version for

> memorially).

[rightlight]

As a DKH parent, I would like to be told what false information I have been given. Can you tell me please?

[DuncanW]

Trine - you began this thread with a call for unity. Then you set out your own stall and lay into those individuals or groups that don't agree with you. That doesn't make sense to me.

You don't seem to have a problem with organised groups who have shown favour towards the eastern nodal point, but schools and councilors who are trying to promote the cause of their own local community make you feel sick. How perplexing?

[Trine Adams]

I'm sad as a rift has been created; there are no other 'organised groups' as you state. As put in my original post, the 'movement to move the nodal to the Actress pub'....does not exist. A letter sent to DKH families saying that there is, a movement and organised group appears to have caused panic in the north of the community. Since my OP, more and more information - such as the letter and the poster campaign have come to light.

If there were other non inclusive campaigns then I would be equally disappointed. By reacting to these false rumors in force a division has been created. How can a consultation be fair if people are being fed false inflammatory information?