Consultation for the Charter School East Dulwich

[LondonMix]

I said that the new school should prevent catchments from shrinking, not that they hadn't shrunk vis-a-vis some point in history (however far you want to go back). I was responding to a very specific point made by someone else.

Where do you think a nodal point should be located and why? No one can seem to answer that even though they are advocating for Charter to adopt this approach.

If the fear is that the new Charter will have a very small catchment (1km) then it can't capture SE22, Peckham Rye,and Nunhead. Where exactly do you want to put the nodal point if that's the case?

[kristymac1]

I don't know, but it would be good to know the rationale for selecting jarvis Road, essentially right on the border of se22/se5. It's charter East Dulwich isn't it? There are many se22 postcodes who won't be served well by this nodal point.

>

> If the fear is that the new Charter will have a

> very small catchment (1km) then it can't capture

> SE22, Peckham Rye,and Nunhead. Where exactly do

> you want to put the nodal point if that's the

> case?

[littlek1cker]

Hi all,

The rationale for prioritising siblings over children with an exceptional medical, psychological or social need is as follows. We want The Charter School East Dulwich to be a community school that all our students can walk to, and that siblings can attend together. To emphasize this point we put siblings above exceptional medical, psychological, and social need. This will not mean that students with these exceptional needs are disadvantaged, as there will always be enough places after children with an Education Health and Care Plan, Looked After Children and siblings for them.

The rationale for choosing Jarvis Road as the nodal point is that it is at the most Easterly point on our site and so minimises the overlap with the current Charter School intake whilst remaining on our site. Bear in mind that most of the Eastern boundary of the hospital site will belong to the new Community Health Centre, not us. Jarvis Road also has the advantage of being a place that parents can easily understand and find on a map, as opposed to a point that could only be described by Ordinance Survey coordinates.

We will look at the feedback we receive from the community as part of the public consultation in relation to both these points and any/all other points raised, and depending on what the feedback is, we will consider whether we need to change our proposals.

I hope that is helpful.

Simon Tucker

[tomskip]

I don't have children who will go to this school but perhaps others at the consultation will want to ask how the new Charter proposes to handle the issue of families renting temporarily in catchment to secure a place for a first child and then moving away to Sydenham or Nunhead or wherever, and all other siblings getting an automatic place thereafter. Having sibling priority does not in itself ensure that a school remains "local".

[dontpanic]

Littlek1cker I think its an erroneous argument to stick a pin in the easternmost part of the actual site and use that as a nodal point because 'it is at the most Easterly point on our site ...whilst remaining on our site'

It makes no odds whatever if the nodal point remains 'on the actual site' as it's a notional point on a map. Making it a few hundred yards further to the east to correspond with the area most in need of additional secondary choice would certainly reduce any overlap, allow a distinct notion of Charter ED from Charter 1, and still make a very local-focussed school where pupils can all walk there.

[simonethebeaver]

Thank you, Simon, for the explanation. I'm slightly surprised that Charter feels the need to do this given that there should be room for all whatever way round it's placed. It does suggest a certain attitude to a category of children which some unenlightened people view as presenting problems, given how unusual this prioritisation is, and your statement rather implies that they are not viewed as part of the community, unlike siblings - I would hope you don't mean that so you might want to think about the wording for future use. For full disclosure I speak as the parent of two children who have fallen into this category.

I hadn't realised before that you are Designate Chair of Governors. Congratulations! But also a bit worrying that you weren't involved in the discussion around the admissions policy given the big role governors usually play in this area. Was this before your appointment? I assume you'll be fully included in decision-making after the consultation? Good luck in your position - I know you bring a lot of expertise with you.

[bawdy-nan]

I'd echo what simonethebeaver says. It does seem like quite a statement of attitude to make about about priority, especially when, as you say Simon, it will likely make no practical difference. In that sense it becomes all and only about a statement of attitude. That's extremely worrying for a parent of a child with any kind of differing or additional needs (EHC or otherwise). It suggests, as simonethebeaver, has pointed out, that the school has a very particular stance towards difference.

[grabot]

Isn't the school going over and above the recommended policy? Or am I mininterpreting thing?

https://www.education.gov.uk/consultations/downloadableDocs/6757-SchoolAdmissionsCode.pdf#page43

"Children with special educational needs but without statements must be treated as fairly as other applicants".

[bawdy-nan]

It certainly isn't breaking any rule but it is a change from existing Charter and very unusual.

[dontpanic]

It's also worth considering this attitude in the context of the current climate with the new EHC plans - much less regulated and anecdotally harder to get.

I'm another one with a child who gets help in primary school (but not at the threshold of an EHC plan) who feels that it does not lay down a statement of intent that reassures me that my child will be welcome and supported to reach potential, even if they do get a place.

[Hollybush]

Dontpanic I really disagree with your point about the nodal point. Moving it a few hundred yards east would clearly have an impact on the other side of the school, where children would not get places even tho they lived closer than children who have been offered places based on distance from the off site node. I think this would be very hard for the school to justify, it would look really unfair, and potentially exclude students from areas where survey responses might be lower but there are no doubt children who would also like to walk to a local school.

[landsberger]

It's a pity that the consultation process didn't actually include a rationale for where the nodal point(s) are. Schools usually do this sometimes to 'balance' or skew their intake. Frankly, anything that isn't the front gate of the school or the Head's office should (without the rationale outlined above) usually be regarded with suspicion and an attempt to engineer the school's intake to exclude low achieving, high cost families who may tarnish the school's reputation by requiring specialist resources and/or not gaining the requisite 5 A* - C GCSEs. The placing of medical and social needs below siblings only goes to reinforce this suspicion.

Maybe they should have impact assessed, as some councils do, a variety of nodal points.

[dontpanic]

I'm in favour of actual evidence re: nodal points. The nodal point should address *actual* need and not those of us willing to put our name on a survey (the usual suspects, I'll admit to my middle classness). Show me actual need stats and I will be happy.

The school was approved because of a local need that was identified, and it's that need that should be covered. We are very lucky that a suitable site has been found that broadly corresponds to that need, and it is vital that the school itself is very careful to consider that need in their admissions process. Whether the nodal point is 'on site' isn't the point, it's finding out the real need. Has Charter done this research into actual stats Simon?

[dontpanic]

So Hollybush I agree that the survey isn't what should be used to decide on catchment

[AccordingtoElvis]

There has been plenty of heat and not much illumination regarding the necessity to have a second/ additional nodal point to the east of the Hospital Site to offset the overlap between the current Charter School at Red Post Hill and the proposed second Charter School at Dulwich Grove.

Maps of supporters / registered parents are very important tools to determine the demand for places and the support for any new school. It is equally important to look at the need for new school places based on the distribution of children at ward level. It is also vital to understand the current secondary school place outcomes for local children. This information is available via the London Schools Atlas, which is compiled from the London School Census.

In September 2014, I set about analyzing the 2013 School Census Data at ward level for south Southwark. I am not a statistician, but I have policy research background, the data actually only requires simple collation and a bit of basic maths at ward level. This data was compiled and submitted to Southwark Council?s Overview and Scrutiny Committee, who are conducting an enquiry into the Southwark?s School Places Planning Strategy.

I have decided to post this data to demonstrate that the case for a potential second nodal point to the east of the site is based on both the analysis of both pupil demographic profiles and the secondary school place outcomes for local children.

The data shows that all wards in south Southwark now have much higher numbers of children of primary school age than the secondary school age group. These children currently at primary school will start to move up to secondary school from Sept 2016. Whilst this is not untypical of London?s growing population, the increase in numbers is in some instances exceptionally high.

There has been a greater percentage increase in the number of primary school pupils living in the wards of East Dulwich, The Lane, Peckham Rye and Nunhead. The data also shows that it is children from these wards (not fortunate enough to be in a co-ed school catchment area or picked via lottery admissions) have very fractured outcomes in terms of their destination secondary schools, with many children getting scattered across lots of schools across South London. There is a significant difference in the choices and outcomes for children not only between wards but also within wards.

It is of course a matter for the Charter School Educational Trust what local data they consider relevant. They will also assess the findings of their consultation process in order to determine the admissions policies in response to local need. The new Charter school is in fact only part of the wider issue of addressing the overall future need for school places in Southwark. The data attached might be considered a useful part of this process and it would not be difficult to repeat the exercise using 2014 data and subsequently 2015 data when it is available.

Ward maps can be found listed here.

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/200531/review_of_polling_districts_polling_places_and_polling_stations

[Belle]

This is really illuminating, thanks.

Also worth reiterating that the nature of free schools is they have to work with the site they are given - and that location may not reflect anything other than what was available. So there is a very good reason for considering nodal points in relation to free schools: to ensure they serve the need that led to the application being granted in the first place.

[dontpanic]

Oh Thanks!

I will go and have a proper look at that.

FYI I've managed to get a link from Southwark's rather unwieldy maps page to a map with all the wards on together: http://maps.southwark.gov.uk/connect/southwark.jsp?mapcfg=defaultmap&mylayer0=S_Boundaries_WardAndCouncillorsNew&x=533699&y=175390&z=7

[confusedbyitall]

Wow very interesting so this shows where the need actually is. The black hole that we hear about really is..the lane, Peckham rye and nunhead areas....

On a side note only 25% locally get into kingsdale - time for them to look at their admissions criteria!

[nicetomeetyou]

Unfortunately, this seems like heat masquerading as illumination. The data doesn't support a second or shifted nodal point, and it's so patchy and partial, it was clearly designed to make a very selective point. To be clear, I'm absolutely in favour of more school places for children in South Southwark (SouthSouth? Anyone?). But there are a few issues.

* This is very selective - only dealing with some of the wards around the new school, not including Brunswick Park or even Camberwell Green, which certainly in the early years will successfully apply for places in the proposed single-node (at Jarvis Road) Charter School East Dulwich (CSED). If you want to talk about need in affected wards, or placement of a second nodal point, the direction to head is north, not south.

* To add any nodal point off the school site creates a qualitative selection, which the CSED proposal pointedly is trying to avoid. Why should middle class families in ED manufacture a result that cuts off the estates in Camberwell and Peckham? Isn't that the perception/problem that the original Charter School Red Post Hill (CSRPH) has been fighting for quite awhile?

* Nunhead clearly has a need. This, however, really can't be Nunhead's saviour school.

I begin to think this data was prepared originally to support the failed Haberdasher's bid (probably why the data is out of date). That bid had non-school-site nodal points, and lost to the CSED bid, with its one, simple, school-site nodal point. IMO, the DfE clearly was rejecting an artificial move of the catchment into affluent areas already better served by quality schools (Village with 74% going to CSRPH, ED with only three schools taking nearly 60% of their children), and away from people in greater need.

[LondonMix]

If the catchment of the new school is a mile, it will automatically cover all of Se22, Peckham Rye and most of Nunhead and there is no need for a nodal point.

If the future catchment is closer the half a mile as some fear, then the catchment will still include parts though not all of these areas without a nodal point.

To select a nodal point if the catchment is really tiny will exclude some of these neighbourhoods quoted above. Which should the nodal point exclude and why?

[LondonMix]

I live right in the centre of ED so it is almost impossible that a nodal point could be selected that would harm me unless it is in the north of Peckham Rye so I am really just trying to understand what the issue is that is driving the demand for a nodal point and the argument supporting it.

No one knows what the size of the Charter School catchment will be as it depends on too many factors to accurately predict. Those who are simplistically using the current Charter's catchment are mistaken in that approach. The new Charter in ED is 50 percent larger than the current Charter and any overlap in their catchments like for like will expand the size of both school's final distance offer.

[colabottle]

I found the data from AccordingtoElvis very helpful. At the very least it is providing us with some facts to work with. Simon, if it is felt that this data is either too selective or out of date, could Charter provide some better data for justifying a nodal point on Jarvis Road? As I understand it at the moment, the only information put forward by Charter to demonstrate the need is a map of supporting interest.

Londonmix, I live at the southern end of East Dulwich, near the junction with Friern Road and Lordship Lane. I have a daughter who will be secondary school intake in 2019. At the moment there is no local secondary school offering where I could confidently expect her to secure a place. I don't want insecurity around her secondary school place, neither do I want her having to travel miles to get to school. We are just over a mile from Harris Girls, which is now partially lottery based. We are much further from Sydenham Girls, which is now distance based entry. We are well out of catchment for the current Charter. Kingsdale is lottery based. Are there any other local non-faith state schools that I am missing?

By the time my daughter attends secondary school, there will be a massive surge in demand for secondary school places. Any existing catchment areas are likely to shrink dramatically. If the Charter ED catchment is a mile at the start, which I personally think is unrealistic (given the nature of debate over the positioning of the nodal point you can get a sense of the demand), we would be on the very outskirts of its catchment. Add the surge of demand, and by the time my daughter gets her chance, I'm pretty sure we'll be out of catchment by some distance. I have been supporting the bids for a new secondary school in East Dulwich for the last two years, and it is extremely frustrating to be left with a situation where there will be a local secondary school that, once again, we will be unable to get into, or where the offer of a place will be highly uncertain.

In my opinion, the desire for a nodal point off-site, to supplement one on-site at Jarvis Road, would be to include more of the people that supported the original campaigns, which identified the need, proposed the site and provided the supporting data. The emphasis is very much one of inclusion, and it is not any one's intention to "exclude" anybody else. There are affluent areas of Camberwell and Peckham, just as there are in East Dulwich, and vice versa. It really isn't a class argument, and to make it one is demeaning to everyone involved.

Camberwell clearly has a need as well, and this argument demonstrates that one school is insufficient to meet demand. Nicetomeetyou says that Charter East Dulwich can't be Nunhead's saviour school. What is the justification for it being Camberwell's saviour school, as opposed to serving the community that supported it's opening, namely East Dulwich. Where are the supporting facts, rather than anecdotal and inflammatory suggestions that it is middle class families trying to exclude less fortunate ones. This is supposed to be a community school, and it is already pitting different communities against each other. Such a shame and totally unnecessary. Surely there is a way of working together on this?

[redjam]

But colabottle, as soon as you start arguing for sticking nodal points away from the position of the actual school, that's exactly when you're going to get different communities jostling for position and arguing their need is greater than other's. How can CSED possibly pick their way through that without being accused of bias one way or another? That's precisely why I think a simple distance-based admission process measured from one point on the site is the fairest solution. There will be winners and losers however this plays out, unfortunately. But I don't see how they can do it any other way without causing massive strife.

Completely agree with LondonMix and nicetomeetyou's posts above.

[rightlight]

The Charter's catchment this year is much smaller than usual, but not as small as many are saying. At the moment it stands at around 1200m. A couple of years ago it was closer to 2000m.

As long as the existing Charter school refuses to take up straight line measurements, the vast majority of children from South Camberwell ward are very unlikely to get places. The safe walking route option is to the detriment of children from around Champion Hill and Dog Kennel Hill. They are further hindered by the Charter School's positioning of its centre point right at the south of the site. This means that children from the affluent Village ward are far more likely to gain places in the school than South Camberwell children.

When the new Charter opens, its intake is significantly bigger (240 rather than 180). Proportionately this means that the new school's catchment should be around 2000m.

As I understand it, the new Charter's choice of the Jarvis Road end of the site is to minimise the overlap between the two schools catchments. Adding an off-site nodal point would open a can of worms and could result in a new consultation which could delay the current proposals.

[dontpanic]

Rightlight "Adding an off-site nodal point would open a can of worms and could result in a new consultation which could delay the current proposals."

I think you're invoking a spectre there to close down debate. Everyone is concerned because they want the best and fairest solution for the long term. I think nearly everyone wants that, even if they don't agree on what that is yet. A consultation should be exactly that. Not a fait accompli, and not an acceptance of something with no clear explanation of why. That's why proper up to date stats on need are important