Charter School admissions change

[Carbonara]

I completely agree that this is unfair on those who thought they were making an informed decision on a benchmark which is no longer valid, but impossible to see how the results of the judgement could or should be ignored for this round.

As for Charter maintaining it's record of achievement, well, what is that worth if it rests solely or mainly on the intake? And there is no reason why any potential shift in overall demography should affect the achievement of any one individual child within the school.

National Offer Day is 4 weeks away. Surely this ruling will now delay any results involving Charter?

[Curmudgeon]

Carbonara Wrote:

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

>

> As for Charter maintaining it's record of

> achievement, well, what is that worth if it rests

> solely or mainly on the intake? And there is no

> reason why any potential shift in overall

> demography should affect the achievement of any

> one individual child within the school.

Yet on a macro level and in the long-run it does and will affect the school, particularly as it already has an acknowledged and mixed demographic intake which it succeeds well with. This is what happens when you put bean counters in charge of education policy (quantifiable results) and publish league tables of narrow definition and promote a non-existant choice to families!

[Carbonara]

Curmudgeon, Surely you are not advocating managing any school intake in order to maintain a middle class cohort?

[Carbonara]

Just in case any E of Lordship Lane or Dulwich parents are panicking about changing the demography, I would like to point out that my nephews who live on one of the estates in question gained 9 A* at GCSE, and that at a school that many of you are probably trying to avoid.

[Curmudgeon]

Carbonara Wrote:

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

> Curmudgeon, Surely you are not advocating managing

> any school intake in order to maintain a middle

> class cohort?

it's not a class issue particularly when the school has been acknowledged by this very adjudication to have a mixed demographic intake including a higher than average rate of students claiming FSM. However social deprivation does bring a greater number of demands in general, not in terms of specific cases, onto school provision and the higher proportion of children from socially deprived backgrounds the harder the task. So it will very much depend on the school management and capabilities. It would be disingenuous at best to turn this into an outmoded class argument.

[albert]

Just to throw cat among the pigeons. I wont let my daughter walk along Wanley Road path on her own in daylight, or with anyone else at night.

[FatherJack]

Albert.....this is a personal choice/preference and I understand that but if you were applying for Charter and you lived in close proximity to the pathway, you would expect to use it as far as your school application is concerned. Once at school a secondary school childs journey to school often changes for whatever reason.

[Coach Beth]

And people can always encourage their child to meet up with friends before and walk together along the path. When I was growing up, I had to cross an isolated field to get to school and would arrange to meet a small group of friends to walk together across the field.

[Carbonara]

Curmudgeon: Schools get paid a premium for students on FSMs - extra resources.

The demography of Charter may well have a higher level of FSM than the national average, but that is in no way close to representative of FSM pupils in Southwark:

Harris Peckham- 59%

Bacon's - 46%

St Saviours and O's - 33.5%

Harris Girls ED - 35%

Harris Boys ED - 39%

Sacred Heart - 25.6%

Walworth - 49%

Harris Bermondsey - 55%

City of London - 37%

Globe 38%

St Thomas Apostle - 24.3%

St Michaels - 30%

(Kingsdale: no information, but their intake is not geographical to Southwark)

So the school claiming 20% is a representative mix is disingenous. Even the nearest favoured and competed for schools in neighbouring boroughs have a higher % of FSM that Charter, with Habs at 24% and Dunraven at 25%.

Like I said, wrong that the school's process resulted in parents on both sides of the new boundaries making decisions based on shaky information. I sympathise. Most of all I hope the school deal with this well and with integrity and continue to provide a good education for our kids. Whatever anyone may think of the implications of a demography, publicly funded schools must do what is right.

[murphy]

I am sure if the walking route led to expensive housing then Charter would have changed its rules a long time ago to make sure people who lived there could attend the school.

The problem is everyone wants schools that produce great results, so schools do what they can to ensure they get a "better quality" intake. Kingsdale for years did the music scholarships which was bound to favour middle class kids.

The Charter school will find it difficult to improve results with an increase in the number of socially and economically deprived kids. Results could drop, which may or may not mean parents once again look to move out to Kent, or to the private sector, for secondary school options for their kids. If this happens then results drop further and you get a school seen to be in decline.

The biggest beneficiary of the changes to the Charter school admissions policy, apart from the kids who can now get in, will be Harris Boys East Dulwich. Their criteria for entry is closest straight line distance. The largest catchment area for the school are the relatively wealthy parts of East Dulwich, who have to an extent avoided the school so far. If most people in East Dulwich decide to apply to Harris (as Kingsdale entry becomes more of a lottery, and those on the east side of Lordship Lane lose out in the changes to the Charter admissions process) then Harris will see their results rise.

The end result could be in a few years that Harris becomes an exceptional school. If that is the case and poorer kids in the main didn't get in, as the catchment area was mostly expensive private housing stock, would local residents and Councillor Barber (East Dulwich Ward) argue that Harris was excluding poorer kids and argue perhaps for a lottery system among all Southwark residents?

All the schools, parents and councillors talk of what is right and fair, but all really have their eyes on the long term benefits to their own school, children or constituents.

[Carbonara]

I want a school that produces a great education. Education comes from the vision and management of the school and the teaching. The results may be affected by a higher proportion of economically and socially disadvantaged kids, but the education of offer should remain the same. Parents need to look more at the education rather than results. Otherwise they may find that what they are choosing as the most important factor is 'people like us'. Even with the distances being measured correctly, Charter will still have the majority of it's catchment in 'comfortable' areas, and the social housing now in catchment hardly generates some of the problems in estates in different areas of Southwark! In a well run comprehensive setting and streaming enables the high achieving children to do very well.

[heber jumble queen]

Of course I want the best for my kids - but certainly not by any devious means - and if families living up Champion Hill way have been disadvantaged then I disagree that it's unfair and this is a victory for them.

My concern is that I was totally unaware of this when I put Charter as my first choice, as kids living down my street and further along go to Charter, so why wouldn't I think that we're well within the usual catchment area (obviously taking into account slight differences as number of applications fluctuate). I'm not trying to keep my kids out of any particular school - but I do have a son with ASD (autism) who isn't statemented and really wouldn't thrive in a boys school so my priority was the nearest co-ed that my son - and indeed his twin brother - could walk to.

Charter don't seem to take social / medical reasons into account despite having paediatric reports to support his application (the adjudication loosely references this) - now that I know that we may be out of the catchment for this year I may well have opted to go for the inexplicable Kingsdale 'random-lottery-cum-X-Factor audition' - but I didn't know, and I was advised historically people living where I do get into Charter (just off Lordship Lane, not in a leafy Dulwich mansion), and that the school's good at supporting ASD kids, so that's what I did.

I'm very pleased that fairness has been adjudicated for those families - but I filled out the form based on reasonable assumptions at the time, and if I was doing it now I'd have to rethink it.

[albert]

Father Jack,

My daughter is at Charter and it would be a route home. However, being flashed at once was enough for her. The police might think it safe. I would dispute that.

[FatherJack]

Albert...I understood exactly what you meant and even sensed there was good reason for it, hence the later part of my post..

...."journey to school often changes for whatever reason". Your daughter's experience gives you good reason to feel it isn't safe but many children use that route and surely you wouldn't be happy if the exclusion of that path had prevented your daughter a place at Charter, as it has for some.

No desire to argue, the bottom line is that Charter have behaved badly and now they are being held accountable, sadly families such as HeberJumbleQueen/Dorothy may be affected by it.

[murphy]

"Safe walking route" is another example of where parents are not usually looking for fairness, they are looking for what benefits their children and themselves.

Talking on a national basis parents will argue in favour of walks through woods, paths, alleys etc if it means they can shorten their walking route and have a better chance of getting into a school. In other instances parents will argue against similar shortcuts and demand a longer walking route be chosen, because it takes them over a certain distance criteria, which means they receive a free bus pass and save some cash.

The battle for what is fair is often subjective rather than objective.

[fairadmissions]

Southwark News has invited people to share their views on this issue.

[jay66]

Albert - are you sure you are not confusing the Green Dale path with the Wanley Road path? The pedestrianised section of Wanley Road is barely long enough to fit a flasher in?

[Carbonara]

Safe walking route should have some definition attached, such as 'a safe walking route is one which has a made-up pavement or is a bridleway or footpath with right of way, street lighting and /or is maintained by the local authority or other body with responsibility for maintenance'.

No one can legislate for flashers, muggers, dog dirt or other random nuisances that could occur anywhere.

Heber Jumble Queen, sorry to hear this has upset your thinking at this late stage, but presumably you also put KD on your list so will get that place if it is your highest preference available? Good luck, anyway.

[Coach Beth]

I think one thing everyone can agree on is the the whole admissions procedure is a nightmare for all concerned!

[heber jumble queen]

Absolutely Coach Beth - why getting into a state school - that we all effectively fund through our taxes - should become such a bun fight with wonky uneven rules is inexplicable... and don't even let me get started on the religious schools.

BTW I didn't intend to 'share my story' because I fancied an Oprah moment, really I just wanted to illustrate how these kinds of policies and decisions actually affect real people and their options. I didn't appreciate the way that James presented this - as a simple victory that may not actually have any impact on real people, because that isn't the case.

Thanks Carbonara - KD on list, but my sporty son would have gone for the sports scholarship nonsense if we decided to put it as our first choice - but he wants to go to the same school as his twin, so decided not to - again a decision that may have been different.

[Renata Hamvas]

The local authority's view is that the school admissions policy of the Charter School, including use of a safe walking distance oversubscription criterion, is in keeping with the School Admissions Code of Practice. Southwark Council does not provide a safe walking distance measurement service to The Charter School nor does it advise on which routes to include/exclude as ?safe routes? for school admission purposes. Our view is that this aspect of the policy is a matter for the academy to determine as it is its own admission authority.

To clarify a few things:

Charter is not changing it's admission policy for 2012 entry. This would require consultation and wouldn't be implemented in the same year. The problem has been how Charter has been implementing its safe walking distance admissions criteria. I was one of a handful of Councillors (also included Cabinet member Veronica Ward, this was in a letter in last week's Southwark News)who supported the parents when they went to adjudication. The police backed the complainants claim on safe walking route to school. The governing body has accepted the adjudicator's recommendations and taken steps to implement them. The disregard of the walking route to the north of the school added up to 0.7km to some applicants distance measurement. The flawed calculation of safest walking distance to school disadvantaged applicants living on two large estates and the surrounding streets in South Camberwell, particularly recently. Charter's last place offered distance has been shrinking in recent years due to a larger number of applicants, so places cannot be guaranteed as there is no fixed catchment area as such. Only after the results have been published will it become clear what the impact of the adjudicator's ruling is.

Charter is an Academy, which means it is outside council control and sets its own admission policy (it became an Academy in 2010 when the current council administration gained control). All secondary schools in Southwark do so as they are either Academies or Faith schools. This is why there is such a huge variation in admission criteria amongst Southwark secondaries. Primary academies and Faith schools also set their own admissions criteria. Free schools are a type of academy.

A post above mentions Harris Boys School, they recently had an Outstanding Ofsted Inspection.

Renata

[intexasatthe moment]

It seems shocking that a school can choose to administer it's admission policy in the way that Charter did ,and for it to go on doing so for 10 years despite people winning appeals which challenged this point .

I'm even more shocked by the way in which Southwark seems to have seen Charter's manipulation of it's admission policy as being beyond their remit ( concern even )and by Renatas's comment

" Our view is that this aspect of the policy is a matter for the academy to determine as it is its own admission authority."

So so long as the policy appears to be fair on paper the school can choose to make it unfair in practice ?

I see that Southwark has an Admissions Forum - on Southwark's site it says the following about the forum

The forum has a key role in ensuring the admissions system is fair, that it promotes social equity and does not disadvantage children. It also ensures that the admissions system is straightforward and easy for parents and carers to understand. Forums also monitor the local authority to ensure that we are complying with the schools admissions code.

Clearly it hasn't managed to achieve the above and I wonder if it even still exists ,the last posted minutes were for a meeting in Feb 2011 .

So it would seem that it will be up to parents to monitor and take action if they have concerns about admission policies and they way they are administered .

Those involved in the Charter campaign may find their advice and experience in demand .

[Carbonara]

What happened to the post which explained that the copy of the adjudicator's judgement had to be taken down as it should not be shown to third parties?

Can I ask WHY this letter should be kept confidential? It is from a process paid for with public money, about a school funded with public money, and about a school to which all citizens should have fair an equal access to apply within transparent criteria. So what if the school wish to challenge some of the findings - if their challenge is upheld they can presumably make that public? The judgement is not about an appeal on behalf of a specific individual, it affects many people, why should it remain secret or private?

[intexasatthe moment]

The link to the report is still on page 2 of this thread .

It's

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

for easy access .

[Carbonara]

Thank you :)