'Charter East Dulwich' Consultation - call for unity

[Trine Adams]

Having lived in SE22 for the last decade, (before and after having children), I'm delighted with the proposed new 'Charter East Dulwich' co-ed secondary on the hospital site. It will provide a great need for co-ed secondary places and bring new employment to the area. Charter are currently consulting with the community regarding the admissions policy and the vision and ethos of the school.

What I am not delighted about is that the community don't appear to be working together. There are schools trying to sway opinions and rumours of 'a movement seeking to persuade the new Charter School to change its nodal (centre) point from the north east of the school site to a new location, off-site, near to the Actress up on Crystal Palace Road'.

There is no 'movement', however there are members of the community who are questioning the proposed admissions policy as at present it will have a large overlap with the provision of the current Charter. They are entitled to question this policy, after all that is what a consultation is all about.

There is also SPACE Southwark, which is the steering group (set up via this forum) made up of East Dulwich school representatives to campaign for a co-ed Secondary school and the Dulwich Hospital site. Charter won the bid to provide this school. The SPACE campaign group does not want to exclude families from any particular school or section of the community, and would like to help find a nodal point / points which stretches the catchment as fairly as possible and reduces the overlap of provision.

When SPACE Southwark were set up, the nodal point's location was never decided because the chosen provider would need to consult and listen to the community, as Charter are now doing. SPACE (who remember initiated the secondary school campaign) has always been about representing the community, and it was felt that a nodal point to the East, along with a second nodal point on the school might have been the fairest way of doing it, but the decision around admissions would always have been made by the provider after consultation.

Please note, that I am not a member of SPACE, although I do know members of that group and I know they are concerned at the divisive way the community is reacting to this consultation. I am a resident of ED, and if the current proposed admission policy is used then there is more than a high chance that my children will get in to the new school. I am simply calling for community unity and that we all work together to find the fairest solution.

Local schools should be informing families about the consultation, however telling them how they should fill out consultation forms and trying to sway opinions with rumours is not constructive to finding a fair community solution. This after all is a consultation and the results of which should be for the greater good of the whole community.

To have your say, you can attend the final consultation meeting this evening (Thursday 18th July) at Heber School. You can also fill in a consultation form here http://www.charter.southwark.sch.uk/news/?pid=3&nid=6&storyid=168

[MsMaz]

Thank you for posting this. Just this week I received a letter reporting on this supposed 'movement' and almost ordering parents to get onto the online survey to ask for nodal point not to be moved from north east.

Back in September, I was also told directly by Charter's new school team (while they were asking parents to support the bid) that they would initially propose the southern eastern end of site, not north.

I hope that Charter are transparent about looking at all the responses to the consultation and responding fairly to it.

[Mimmum]

Well said. Is important that everyone in the community works together to make the admission policy for this new school fair for all. Does seem like a big area of East Dulwich still won't see the benefits of this school, especially the children of Goodrich/Heber for example. Not great considering the sales pitch was for an East Dulwich Secondary school...

[LondonMix]

While I understand the concern regarding overlap, it really does not matter because one child cannot attend two schools. Any theoretical overlap automatically extends the catchment area further east and west of both schools without the need for complex nodal point system trying to develop a strategy.

I suggest those in favor of a nodal point read the government guidance on fair admission policies below:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/389813/Free_School_Admissions_Guidance.pdf

Relevant extracts:

 

(page4)

"It is worth setting out here that admission arrangements, while adopting criteria that appear to be Code compliant in themselves, could still be judged to be non-compliant with the Code by the Schools Adjudicator if, for instance they are:

10.1. setting a catchment that sought to exclude a local area could breach these provisions, especially if areas further away from the school were given priority;"

Also see footnote 4 on page 5 of the official government guidance.

"4 It is impossible to be comprehensive about this but arrangements that deliberately bypass children living

next to the school or which target schools some distance away as feeders over those closer to the school

are likely to be unfair. "

As much as you want it, a consultation cannot result in an unfair policy being adopted. Parents closer to the school would have every right to take Charter to the adjudicator and have the admission arrangement overturned.

[hpsaucey]

But - this presumably goes some way to defining the scope for 'local':

13. It is a requirement of the Academies Act (2010) that academies (including free

schools) provide places for children of all abilities the majority of whom are from the

?area?. This means that their admission arrangements must allow for over 50% of pupils

to be from the area.3

3

?Area? is not defined in law. It can be broader for boarding schools than for day schools. It can also be

broader for specialised provision such as UTCs than for schools without such a specialism. Transport

guidance says that ?statutory walking distance? is 3 miles for those over 8 or 2 miles for those under 8 (i.e.

regardless of LA boundaries). It would therefore be reasonable ? as a starting point at least - for the ?area?

to be such a radius around the school if it is not a boarding school, or a school with a particular

specialisation. It could be wider if the school could justify it.

and:

re: "4 It is impossible to be comprehensive about this but arrangements that deliberately bypass children living

next to the school or which target schools some distance away as feeders over those closer to the school

are likely to be unfair. "

Having a nodal point elsewhere would not mean that children 'living next to the school' were bypassed. Just that the 'area' in number 3 above might be skewed geographically differently around/ from the school - with an off=centre radius.

[LondonMix]

No it does not mean that. I'll include the section on nodal points for completeness.

As you'll see below, you can have nodal points but one of them always should be the actual school. More importantly, the justification for them is fairly constrained:

25.5. Nodal points (e.g. a geographic point in the school grounds and between

one and 3 others in key catchments within the local community) may also

be used as a form of catchment to ensure a school not only serves pupils

close to the school but others slightly further away with little or no priority

access to other schools. Care needs to be taken to ensure nodal points do

not unfairly discriminate against particular social groups (paragraph 1.8 of

the Code).

Its pretty clear that one point has to be the school itself and that a nodal point can only be seen as fair if there is access to no other schools and the creation of it does not exclude any social group. While people may not like the Harris ED schools, saying there is no access to them for people living on Northcross Road (they only suggested nodal point so far) cannot be substantiated if challenged with the adjudicator. More importantly, a shift in the catchment further south from the school will clearly impact certain social groups disproportionately.

The grounds for challenging the nodal points is clear in the government guidance on fair admissions.

[James Barber]

Being picky but SPACE did not initate the secondary school campaign - my ward colleagues and I did. We launched the campaign publicly 5 December 2013. We formed a parents steering committee in March 2014 which then also took up the mantle for promoting the idea.

as you say the whole point of a public consultation is to consult on points such as this. So I hope many people have responded with their thoughts.

Having a nodal pioint where the site meets Jarvis Road - as proposed - is not ideal. Residents on Melbourne Grove are concerned an entrance will be proposed there. If it were - from our surveys of local residents - the school planning application would generate many objections. So the one place a nodla point should'nt be is where it is proposed.

[Belle]

I don't think anyone is arguing for a proposed nodal point to the exclusion of one on the school itself! The debate is over whether a second (or more) could be placed.

It's not a question of liking Harris - in the case of the girls' school, they have now moved to majority lottery system so your chances of getting a place on proximity are slim.

LondonMix Wrote:

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

> No it does not mean that. I'll include the

> section on nodal points for completeness.

>

> As you'll see below, you can have nodal points but

> one of them always should be the actual school.

> More importantly, the justification for them is

> fairly constrained:

>

> 25.5. Nodal points (e.g. a geographic point in the

> school grounds and between

> one and 3 others in key catchments within the

> local community) may also

> be used as a form of catchment to ensure a school

> not only serves pupils

> close to the school but others slightly further

> away with little or no priority

> access to other schools. Care needs to be taken to

> ensure nodal points do

> not unfairly discriminate against particular

> social groups (paragraph 1.8 of

> the Code).

>

> Its pretty clear that one point has to be the

> school itself and that a nodal point can only be

> seen as fair if there is access to no other

> schools and the creation of it does not exclude

> any social group. While people may not like the

> Harris ED schools, saying there is no access to

> them for people living on Northcross Road (they

> only suggested nodal point so far) cannot be

> substantiated if challenged with the adjudicator.

> More importantly, a shift in the catchment further

> south from the school will clearly impact certain

> social groups disproportionately.

>

> The grounds for challenging the nodal points is

> clear in the government guidance on fair

> admissions.

[hpsaucey]

LondonMix Wrote:

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

> No it does not mean that. I'll include the

> section on nodal points for completeness.

>

> As you'll see below, you can have nodal points but

> one of them always should be the actual school.

> More importantly, the justification for them is

> fairly constrained:

>

> 25.5. Nodal points (e.g. a geographic point in the

> school grounds and between

> one and 3 others in key catchments within the

> local community) may also

> be used as a form of catchment to ensure a school

> not only serves pupils

> close to the school but others slightly further

> away with little or no priority

> access to other schools. Care needs to be taken to

> ensure nodal points do

> not unfairly discriminate against particular

> social groups (paragraph 1.8 of

> the Code).

>

> Its pretty clear that one point has to be the

> school itself and that a nodal point can only be

> seen as fair if there is access to no other

> schools and the creation of it does not exclude

> any social group. While people may not like the

> Harris ED schools, saying there is no access to

> them for people living on Northcross Road (they

> only suggested nodal point so far) cannot be

> substantiated if challenged with the adjudicator.

> More importantly, a shift in the catchment further

> south from the school will clearly impact certain

> social groups disproportionately.

>

> The grounds for challenging the nodal points is

> clear in the government guidance on fair

> admissions.

Being picky ' little or no priority access to other schools.' as in the document is different to your 'no access' to the ED Harris ones. This is a very moot point for those with girls around Harris Girls ED given the planned changes to admissions there in Lewisham for example but then you've read the thread..... (and I'm not in the category of parent with a girl in that geographical area before anyone asks).

HP

[hpsaucey]

Anyway - signing off as I realise I'm going against the original spirit of the OP!

Hoping for many constructive conversations and a suitable way forward found for the consultation for the much-needed new school.

HP

[bonaome]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Having a nodal pioint where the site meets Jarvis

> Road - as proposed - is not ideal. Residents on

> Melbourne Grove are concerned an entrance will be

> proposed there. If it were - from our surveys of

> local residents - the school planning application

> would generate many objections. So the one place a

> nodla point should'nt be is where it is proposed.

This is a wind-up isn't it?

[JDR]

I am aware of two schools locally who have directly emailed parents pretty much with instructions on how to comment. Whilst it is great people are encouraged to engage and participate there seems to be some nuances to what has been said or suggesting that they could serve their own school best by feeding back certain points. I appreciate we are all naturally nuanced but a broad engagement and thinking about the community as a whole would be better. It seems it is starting to become devisive which I'm sure nobody would wish for.

[Trine Adams]

Sorry James, yes I haven't made that clear. The steering group was launched by yourself on the forum and SPACE set up as a result of that steering group in order to secure the hospital site.

Let's not get away from my main message folks; Charter's proposed 'nodal' is just that; it is a starter for discussion and consultation; it's not a done deal. At a Charter meeting at Darrel Rd. a few months ago pre-consultation the governors said themselves that the hospital site isn't ideal however it is all we have to work with. The admissions policy needs to be as inclusive as possible for the community and the primary schools that serve it.

[LondonMix]

hpsaucey Wrote:

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

>

> Being picky ' little or no priority access to

> other schools.' as in the document is different to

> your 'no access' to the ED Harris ones. This is a

> very moot point for those with girls around Harris

> Girls ED given the planned changes to admissions

> there in Lewisham for example but then you've read

> the thread..... (and I'm not in the category of

> parent with a girl in that geographical area

> before anyone asks).

>

> HP

That's a fair comment. Little to no access is different from none. However, I don't believe little or no access exists anywhere in ED.

The fact that every school has its own policy and Southwark (unlike Lewisham) fails to coordinate admissions is a large part of the problem.

I think Harris?s ED's policy change is calculated?

With that said, its admission is still priority distance for 1km from Cloyton Rd for one third of its intake. While not as good as pure distance, the distance radius does extend over Nunhead, as well as the Eastern and Southern areas within East Dulwich.

Therefore, it would be hard for the Charter to support a nodal point designed to serve those areas if challenged by a case being brought to the adjudicator, particularly in light of the impact it would have on the social composition of the school.

[confusedbyitall]

Therefore, it would be hard for the Charter to support a nodal point designed to serve those areas if challenged by a case being brought to the adjudicator, particularly in light of the impact it would have on the social composition of the school.

You really talk a load of noise! What does that even mean? Please remember what this thread is about....

[simonethebeaver]

Are there figures to support the claim that south Camberwell is more diverse than Nunhead and Peckham Rye?

Sorry, a diversion and I do apologise, because I wholeheartedly support the premise of this thread. But I keep seeing it being said as fact, that one bit of the community is more socially diverse than others, and it doesn't make much sense to me. And seems to be promoting the setting of one part of the area against another.

[LondonMix]

There is no need to be rude or aggressive. The point was to understand what a fair policy would be so I am referencing official government guidance (rather than personal opinion) on what a fair admission policy entails.

confusedbyitall Wrote:

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

> Therefore, it would be hard for the Charter to

> support a nodal point designed to serve those

> areas if challenged by a case being brought to the

> adjudicator, particularly in light of the impact

> it would have on the social composition of the

> school.

>

>

> You really talk a load of noise! What does that

> even mean? Please remember what this thread is

> about....

[confusedbyitall]

hardly rude or aggressive but I could be if you like

[JDR]

It is interesting to note that Harris Girls has its entry point off its own site! They state on their website

"girls? proximity to the school between the main entrance to the student?s home and the road junction of Shelbury Road and Colyton Road, using straight-line, computer calculated measurements"

So in theory an offsite admission point is permissible if the results of the consultation call for it. Admittedly if I lived on Melbourne Grove I wouldn't want everyone coming from that side as its a very congested road now! Though I guess it could just be used for measurement purposes and not as a main entrance?

Comment added to state I've gone off the original thread point so I'll stop now 😕

[HannahSE23]

Just a small additional but vital point. Many kids in the southern end of SE22 and eastern end/Nunhead used to have the 'option' of Forest Hill and Sydenham schools as their admission systems were based on banding and distance. However, Lewisham have just changed their admissions policy so that all schools are based on distance only, meaning that kids in the southern end of SE22 and Nunhead are definitely too far away from FH and Sydenham. What with the changes at Harris to lottery as well, they're really at a disadvantage and a potential black hole. Therefore to 'serve' those children it would seem only fair to use a different nodal point. It isn't those children's fault that the only site available was the Dulwich Hospital site, nor that Lewisham and Harris have changed their admissions. Had a site been found east of ED I'm sure people in Camberwell would be calling for a nodal point to the north!

All said in the spirit of Trine Adams call for unity of course!

[LondonMix]

Where exactly do you think children don't have a chance of getting into any school. The lottery for Harris is only for part of the places. 1/3rd of the places are still offered on distance within 1km of the nodal point. That 1km radius covers most of South ED and East of Peckham Rye park.

[MsMaz]

And LondonMix, it could also be argued that those in South Camberwell and Bellenden are just as easily served by Harris Peckham - I think you even made this point yourself before. So they can't exactly argue that they can't get into any school either.....

All in the spirit of unity too!

[LondonMix]

Ms Maz, it doesn't work that way. A school's admission policy to be fair should serve the children nearest to it. A nodal point can be introduced nearby to serve pupils that have no other alternative and if it doesn't unduly impact certain social groups. The children closest to the actual physical location of the school don't lose the right to have priority attendance just because there are other schools nearby. Again, this isn't my opinion, its the official government guidance.

[LondonMix]

simonethebeaver Wrote:

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

> Are there figures to support the claim that south

> Camberwell is more diverse than Nunhead and

> Peckham Rye?

>

> Sorry, a diversion and I do apologise, because I

> wholeheartedly support the premise of this thread.

> But I keep seeing it being said as fact, that one

> bit of the community is more socially diverse than

> others, and it doesn't make much sense to me. And

> seems to be promoting the setting of one part of

> the area against another.

Very good, question. I've looked to see if that general assumption is true and it is.

First, its worth explaining that the name of Wards do not correspond with the areas as we know them. For instance, Peckham Rye Ward actually covers the eastern part of East Dulwich and the western side of what we think of as Nunhead. The Lane Ward (for the census) actually covers the area north of East Dulwich Road that most of us would call Peckham Rye. South Camberwell Ward, covers the area just south and south west of the hospital site. At the links below you can see the ward maps to see which neighbourhoods the statistics cover. All of this information is from the ONS.

The proposed nodal point would benefit Peckham Rye Ward (Nunhead and eastern part of East Dulwich). Some key stats are:

* 35% Non white http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=7&b=6504807&c=Peckham+Rye&d=14&e=61&g=6336964&i=1001x1003x1032x1004&m=0&r=1&s=1434646997281&enc=1&dsFamilyId=2575

* 29% non-British http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=7&b=6504807&c=Peckham+Rye&d=14&e=61&g=6336964&i=1001x1003x1032x1004&o=362&m=0&r=1&s=1434647204688&enc=1&dsFamilyId=2525

* 48% of households without any deprivation indicators (the higher the better off you are) http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=7&b=6504807&c=Peckham+Rye&d=14&e=61&g=6336964&i=1001x1003x1032x1004&m=0&r=1&s=1434646997281&enc=1&dsFamilyId=2520

The proposed nodal point would potentially exclude pupils from South Camberwell Ward and Lane Ward (which covers the part of Peckham immediately south of East Dulwich Road)

The key stats are:

South Camberwell

* 44% Non white http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=7&b=13689058&c=Camberwell&d=14&e=13&g=6337119&i=1001x1003x1004&o=362&m=0&r=1&s=1434649905546&enc=1&dsFamilyId=2477

* 36% non-British http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=7&b=13689058&c=Camberwell&d=14&e=61&g=6337119&i=1001x1003x1032x1004&o=362&m=0&r=1&s=1434649919436&enc=1&dsFamilyId=2525

* 46% of households without any deprivation indicators (the higher the better off you are) http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=7&b=13689058&c=Camberwell&d=14&e=10&g=6337119&i=1001x1003x1004&o=362&m=0&r=1&s=1434649900061&enc=1&dsFamilyId=2520

The Lane (i.e. Peckham)

* 47% Non white http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=7&b=13689060&c=The+Lane&d=14&e=61&g=6337198&i=1001x1003x1032x1004&o=362&m=0&r=1&s=1434649169500&enc=1&dsFamilyId=2575

* 37% non-British http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=7&b=13689060&c=The+Lane&d=14&e=61&g=6337198&i=1001x1003x1032x1004&o=362&m=0&r=1&s=1434649169500&enc=1&dsFamilyId=2525

* 37% of households without any deprivation indicators (the higher the better off you are) http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=7&b=13689060&c=The+Lane&d=14&e=10&g=6337198&i=1001x1003x1004&o=362&m=0&r=1&s=1434649712186&enc=1&dsFamilyId=2520

[simonethebeaver]

Thank you. Those are interesting. But at the same time (a) fairly close, certainly South Camberwell and Peckham Rye, (b) a pretty blunt instrument to make sophisticated conclusions from, of the sort that really should be made before making big claims about social mix. Eg how many of those with deprivation indicators have school age children? (Many will be pensioners, in all three wards.) How many children in the ward are privately educated, therefore removing them from the equation? To what degree is non-white or non-British an indicator of deprivation in each area? And so on.

[On edit] Looking at the deprivation indices for the first time ever, I see the caveat is made about how much can be read into the stats alone. For example, one index of deprivation is 'not owning a car', which is clearly a major issue in some parts of the country but a lifestyle choice in a city. This is what I mean about wanting to see a more complex argument on social mix if it is to become such an important part of the issue.