Charter School admissions change

[fox1]

and i had to appeal for a place ok i won but other people were given a place who lived futher away then me

[prickle]

The the 'safest walking distance' is an interesting concept. I assume that by 'safest' we mean safe from traffic. By allowing the walk from the top of DKH to Charter through Wanley, you will be walking through the top of Greendale. This is fine in daylight but definitely would not like my children to do this in the dark in winter.

[Dorothy]

Fox1 - just wanted to make it clear that I have no argument with you or anyone else whose child should be at the Charter school because they are within closest walking distance.

I think what I (and possibly others on this thread) am saying is that we were completely unaware of this issue re. the "true catchment" if you like, and, had we been, then we wouldn't even have included Charter on our application list, as we live on the other side of East Dulwich in the sort of grey area where you might or might not get a place. Now that there will be a whole group of children who will get places as the result of this hearing, then we are now firmly out of the loop and our applications are in effect wasted.

[fox1]

dorothy i know what you are saying i appealed for charter and during my research i descovered so intresting imformation charter have 180 place if 200 appiled and 180 were sibling all the places would go to the 180 then if there were place left they have other criteria them walking distance. its a wired one i hope it all works out for you roll on march

[James Barber]

Apologies for those who asked me to email the adjudicators report - just done it.

It is clear that the problem was having a stated adminissions criteria and then not administering it.

The appeal includ evidence from local Police that the routes were safe. Evidence from the ordnance survey that other schools used a different layer of data. That Chater school was effectively using distance by car and not safe walking distance.

That the methods used by the school were contrary to a surprising number of statutory requirements.

So anyone who applied on the basis of the advertised criteria should not be disadvantaged and an injustice has been resolved.

That Southwark council appears to have supported the status quo is worrying.

[Curmudgeon]

But those parents who have made their preferential decisions for school application based on the information provided by the government and LA, those who were previously well within the catchment both by DirectGov schoolfinder site and all the postcode mappings and the historical catchment of Charter School ARE disadvantaged by having incomplete information at time of application and subsequently their 'choice' revoked for the up-coming academic year

Changing the goalposts after the applications have gone in is inequitable to those who it detrimentally affects.

And of course you can't please all the people all the time but it seems another injustice to revoke 'choice' (laughable term)

James Barber Wrote:

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

>

> So anyone who applied on the basis of the

> advertised criteria should not be disadvantaged

> and an injustice has been resolved.

>

> That Southwark council appears to have supported

> the status quo is worrying.

[championofthehill]

The Charter School states very clearly on its website that it does not have a catchment. After places are given to siblings, children in care, and children with SEN, the remainder are given out to children living closest to the school. This distance varies quite considerably from year to year. Anyone 'well within the catchment' as Curmudgeon puts it, will still be very likely to get a place. The Secretary of State's decision to ask the school to correctly follow its own admissions policy will not affect people unless they are towards the edge of the distances previously accepted. These people could never have been sure to have been offered a place, due to normal fluctuations. A few years ago children from the Champion Hill area were offered places at the school, despite their inflated home-to-school measurement.

The council's support of the status quo is hardly surprising as they were party to this practice until 2010 when the school became an academy. Quite a few individual councillors (from across the parties) did support the Campaign though.

[intexasatthe moment]

Reading the report I am shocked by the degree of autonomy that the school assumed .

But this is the situation we have now - all secondary schools in Southwark are their own admissions authorities and this case clearly demonstrates what a strong position they are in to evade the regulations in place to ensure that they conform to the code of practice .

( don't even get me started on the yawning gap between the requirement to be clear and easily understood and Kingsdale's complex arrangement re scholarships ,lotteries ,banding and how they organise the waiting lists )

James seems to be stressing that Southwark have supported the Charter in the dubious administration of it's oversubscrition policy .

As far as I can see from the report Southwark commented that they didn't administer any secondary school admissions but that for primary schools they used the "straight line " approach and that they didn't think Charter were in breach of the code .

Presumably as the time when Southwark did control admissions to secondary schools receeds ever further into the past they will have even more reason to state as they did in this case that they " are not in a good position to comment on the technical aspects of the case ".

I'm not really clear what Southwark should have done ,presumably there were actions open to them .

But it's not just the current administration that haven't taken them - this refusal on the Charter's part to recognise a footpath has been going on for 11 years since the school opened . I have a friend who had to go to appeal in 2001 on exactly this issue and she was succesful . Southwark presumably should have taken action before .

And I agree with other posters - this corrects the administration for this years intake but has indeed altered the circumstances for applicants to secondary schools this year after they've made their applications .

[skyblue]

The way forward re admissions must be the adoption of the Report's recommendations. i.e the adoption of a radial or straight line admission criteria as set out at para 62.

This is the fairest for all children. I look forward to Charter adopting this for the 2013 intake.

[fairadmissions]

As the decision document by the Schools Adjudicator is a public document (and should be published on their website at some point soon), and as there is a need for people on all sides of the issue to see the ruling, the document can be accessed online from here:

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B9GB1PQuo9iAODYyYzZiMWEtYzEzYS00Y2U3LWE4M2MtNTJiMzhiNjc5YzZl

[James Barber]

Many thanks fairadmissions for this.

Hi skyblue,

The adjudicator makes it clear they expect their adjudication of how the school administer its admissions policy be used for 2012 admissions. They make it clear that the route to ignore their adjudication is via the courts which would be an appalling use of Charter School money which they would probalby lose. Equally seeking legal redress against the Secretary of State who they legally report to is unlikely to be helpful for the school.

I'd hope they'd have the good grace to accept they've been shown how to administer their admissions more fairly going forward and celebrate it will be better.

Hi intexasat the moment,

Yes, South Camberwell ward councillors supported this - especially Cllr Govier - but it does seem strange that a letter of support from the administration was issued when the evidence was so clearly indicating Southwark Council shouldn't be supporting the status. If two of the ward councillors are the council leader and another a cabinet member you'd have expected them to have spoken to the cabinet member for education to ensure such a silly letter wasn't sent.

[skyblue]

Absolutely, Charter must do what they have been told to do for this admission's year. i.e ensure that they adopt the correct application of safest walking route. i.e that which is set out by the adjudicator.

And going forward they should adopt the recommendations of the adjudicator of a radial ar straight line catchment criteria.

That is what is fair for all.

Well done to those who brought this campaign.

[intexasatthe moment]

James " it does seem strange that a letter of support from the administration was issued when the evidence was so clearly indicating Southwark Council shouldn't be supporting the status"

the report only quotes from comments made by Southwark ,there is no mention of a letter supporting the status.

Have I missed it or is it a letter you've seen elsewhere ?

Can someone explain how radial distance works - sorry to be dense !

Guess we'd btter hope it's not "radial" as presumably this will be outside Southwark's experience and they'll be at a loss to know whether Charter are administrating the system fairly or not .

[James Barber]

Hi skyblue,

The adjudicator said The Charter might consider changing future admissions to straight line distance but equally it could keep the current safestwalking distance and that would'nt involve any change in the admissions policy - just making sure they administer it reasonably.

One of the ladies told me that The Charter School uses some of the disputed routes to take its pupils to football games at the Fulwich Hamlets.

[intexasatthe moment]

And the letter from Southwark supporting the Charter's discredited method of working out shortest walking distance ?

[skyblue]

A straight line would be a transparent, fair and easy rule. It is used by all primaries in southwark. After this ruling the policy should not only be just but seen to be just. Every parent can work out the distance and make an informed and clear decision as to prospects of success in securing a place.

[FatherJack]

Have a look at this...a shorter version of the actual report.....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/feb/01/academy-school-catchment-council-estates

I guess the moral of this story is that hell hath no fury like a group of scorned but determined parents!

[prickle]

> I guess the moral of this story is that hell hath

> no fury like a group of scorned but determined

> parents!

The campaign was lead by a group of assertive, middle-class parents. Don't forget that the Wanley decision will make Charter more accessibe to the middle-class enclave that is Champion Hill and Grove Hill.

It is great that this has been resolved but to show it as some kind of socialist campaign to give access to Charter to the underpriveliged is naive. It is pure self interest.

[James Barber]

The campaign was led by a group of parents living in social housing. Guess some middle class but that's not really the point. The school appeared to the adjudicator to have used the way it administered it's admissions policy to block children from Champion Hll Estate and Cleve Hall Estate - both social housing.

[Curmudgeon]

Well 20% FSM is way above national average and there was an acceptance that the school does have a comprehensively mixed background.

The more FSM students the better the school finances based on the new 'pupil premium' which means more money that can be spent on all the students so that's good.

I've read the adjudication I think it's fair if I'm honest - though I'm still stunned at the retrospective removal of informed choice from secondary school admissions for this year.

Whether Charter will be able to keep up it's record of achievement with their revised catchment is yet to be seen.

[intexasatthe moment]

I'd like to know more about the role of Southwark in overseeing secondary school admissions .

With all Southwark secondaries being their own admission authorities Southwark might take the easy route and back out all together ,effectively leaving it up to parents to monitor and persue good and fair ( honest even ) practice .

Southwark's comment in the adjudicator's report that their experience was in straight line admission policies in primary school and that they couldn't comment on the technicalties of Charter's administration of their policy certainly sounds like they're distancing themselves .

And there is now no longer any statutory requirement for LA's to have admission forums so Southwark are free to bow out all together .

[intexasatthe moment]

I'm still stunned at the retrospective removal of informed choice from secondary school admissions for this year.

curmudgeon I agree with you .

It's worth noting for those who didn't think they,d get in because the Charter hadn't in the past recognised this route from the Dog Kennel Hill side that the ajudicator recommends that late applications could/should be accepted . ( or that's my understanding ) .

I honestly do agree with you but ,out of interest are there really that many " choices " ( ha ha ) for those who feel they now have less chance of being sucessful and have "wasted " an application that they would have applied elsewhere ?

I'm just wondering where else they'd have tried ...somewhere out of borough ,Deptford Green ?

[FatherJack]

Prickle...as far as I'm concerned it was not to provide access to the underprivileged and I have no self interest but I do believe in a fair process for all. I'm sure some if not many may have a personal agenda but please don't tar everyone with the same brush.

Edited just to say agree with Curmudgeon's comment "removal of informed choice re applications this year" ........given that the first time this was raised with Charter was back in 2000....

[prickle]

FatherJack Wrote:

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

> Prickle...as far as I'm concerned it was not to

> provide access to the underprivileged and I have

> no self interest but I do believe in a fair

> process for all. I'm sure some if not many may

> have a personal agenda but please don't tar

> everyone with the same brush.

Totally agree with you FJ that fairness for all is what we are after. I think the socio-economic background or precise address of the excluded families are a just a distraction, one that the press (eg the Guardian headline) is only to glad to use. All families are after only one thing - the best for their children. It somehow makes it more acceptable when the children concerned are seen as being more needy.

Think the solution to all this is to use the crow-flies distance.

[Chippy Minton]

James - the Guardian's report states the school has accepted the recommend, but also it has taken legal advice and is in the process of challenging a number of the assertions. Can you shine anymore light on what this does/might mean?