'Charter East Dulwich' Consultation - call for unity

[LondonMix]

Non-white is definitely NOT an indicator of deprivation automatically. A nodal point as part of an admissions arrangement cannot violate section 1.8 of the code as referenced above.

Paragraph 1.8 of the Code says that ?Admission authorities must ensure that their arrangements will not disadvantage unfairly, either directly or indirectly, a child from a particular social or racial group.?

The stats were to show the social, racial and economic make up of the different areas, that's all.

[simonethebeaver]

But they look broadly comparable to me, given that you'll end up with a mix of a few wards. None of them is drastically lower or higher in the national context than any other. What are those stats for Village ward? That's where I'd expect to see a difference.

Apologies for misunderstanding why you'd posted details about national and ethnic background.

I hope you can see why I am uneasy that people asking Charter to consider a nodal point off site are being called snobs? It seems a rather cheap way to try to silence people. I attended two events held by Habs at which people, hundreds of them, were very clear that they wanted to see a nodal point off-site, and I'm certain they weren't looking to socially engineer the new school's intake. The consultation is meant to consult!

[bels123]

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.

My understanding as a local resident is the nodal point being on Jarvis Road doesn't automatically mean the entrance will be there, it could still be on ED Grove for example, in which case the potential planning objection you mention is not relevant here. James, please clarify if you have confirmation otherwise.

[LondonMix]

Simonthebeaver

I have never said anyone wanting a nodal point is being a snob! I don't think that's true. I think that a nodal point is unfair personally and based on government guidelines and I think people who are advocating for it are putting themselves above what's fair for the general community, which is different (and a natural parental instinct).

With that said, I do think parents prefer schools that are socio-economically balanced in their intake (I do too) and I think that's natural. I also think that the more balanced mix at Charter in Herne Hill is IN PART why its so popular compared to Harris Peckham which is close, co-ed, non-faith, and undersubscribed even though it gets better academic results for most of its students than the Charter does.

I think as the mix there changes (which it will do once there is a shortage of places in 2018) it will become a more popular local choice. Kingsdale used to be seen in that way. Bessemer Grange to some extent as well though its becoming an ever more popular choice as its really an outstanding school.

[LondonMix]

And by the way, even if the socio-economic make up of the various areas were exactly the same, it would still be unfair (and against guidance given there are other schools that pupils can attend without a nodal point being implemented). That's not my primary objection to the nodal point, I was really just going through the full guidance for the sake of the discussion.

[simonethebeaver]

Others have said it, LondonMix.

I personally don't get into this school (well, my children. I'm past that point, thank goodness) wherever the nodal point sits, so to that extent it isn't my issue. But I think you're underestimating the lack of access to schools in the areas to the east, and overstating what that population is asking for, which is two nodal points, one on the site and one to the east, rather than just one off-site point. The people living by the site get in whatever. The site is incidental - why do DfE want to know about parental demand if it's less relevant than wherever the school ends up? The policy is so problematic it's not surprising that it leads to frustration and confusion!

[simonethebeaver]

I'm also wondering what the point of a consultation is if only only model of admissions policy is allowed under the rules (which I think are more ambiguous than you do). Kingsdale's lottery causes big issues for local children, who are undoubtedly deprived of a local school, but we're told that the school is an academy so nothing can be done.

[LondonMix]

Okay, well, I disagree with those that have said that!

The demand element of the application is in part to show the school is viable (i.e. it won't be undersubscribed). Undersubscribed schools are a waste of money and they also are under a lot of financial pressure and risk closing. This is really to prevent odd specialist schools opening that the community has no interest in with strange philosophies and specialisms no one wants.

The other side of the demand that the DfE assesses is need. The need and shortage is in the south of the borough. To that extent, support for the format of the school should come from the south of the borough and a site in the south of the borough needed to be identified as part of the application process (if available).

A site in the south of Southwark has been found fortunately! Also, support for the school has also been found in the south of Southwark (not just ED but really all over based on the heatmaps).

Fortunately, this site actually sits in a place where it can serve the various communities that supported the application. Even if this wasn't the case though, the DfE guidance is that priority admission should still be for those closest to the school because if those pupils don't want to go (i.e. no demand) then those who supported the application, will get in anyway. Parents who support the application do not get any special priority for admission.

The randomness of site allocation is in part what makes it fair. The selection of the site wasn't designed to give preference to any section of the community over another.

If there is an actual black hole (supported by facts, not fear), then I think a nodal point should be placed there (not Northcross Road). At the beginning of this, I didn't object to a nodal point if you look at my posts. I asked repeatedly, where one should be and why. No one has provided a spot so far that is compliant with government guidance on fairness. If they can, then I will totally reverse my position.

[LondonMix]

I never said it won't be approved, but rather that it can be challenged (and there are successful precedents for this). The Charter themselves have had their old admission policy ruled unfair and they had to make changes to it. I believe Habs was threatened by Lewisham and made changes as well some time ago.

There are a few things that are considered 'fair' by the government for different reasons that can distort how local a school is.

1. Banding to make the intake more comprehensive regarding ability. This is seen as fair as its deemed appropriate to spread academically capable pupils throughout the system and that it is of benefit to everyone.

2. Lotteries to increase the socio-economic diversity of a school. This is really designed to address richer parents effectively buying their spot into a successful school, creating educational ghettos.

The Sutton Trust (a well regarded educational non-profit think tank) strongly advocates both banding and lotteries to make access to high quality education more equitable. However, there are many who believe schools should be entirely local and that is what most parents seem the prefer as people hate uncertainty.

Two articles with different views:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-26354648

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/10656101/Surge-in-admissions-lotteries-threatens-childrens-right-to-place-at-local-school.html

Personally, I agree with the Sutton trust but I think those policies only make sense if all schools adopt the same policy and if there are significant quality differences in schools that need to be remedied. In Southwark, virtually all the schools are very good and improving so its not necessary in my view. Distance is fine.

simonethebeaver Wrote:

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

> I'm also wondering what the point of a

> consultation is if only only model of admissions

> policy is allowed under the rules (which I think

> are more ambiguous than you do). Kingsdale's

> lottery causes big issues for local children, who

> are undoubtedly deprived of a local school, but

> we're told that the school is an academy so

> nothing can be done.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Just came back from the Heber consultation. Wow there are some angry people. Crazy.

[HannahSE23]

Just got back from the consultation and all I can say is wow! Lots of talk of community which was funny because everyone was shouting each other down. A horrible atmosphere to be honest. We all want the best for our kids but it came across as grasping and selfish and at the expense of common decency. Also interesting was the demographic... whether people were from Camberwell, Peckham or ED they were pretty much all white and all middle class. What made me laugh were the impassioned people who had kids at nursery or whose eldest had only just started reception. It's a long way to go folks! If that's what it's going to be like at Charter you can have my son's place because I won't be sending him there.

[HannahSE23]

Crossed posts with rahrahrah and we agree on 'wow'!

[simonethebeaver]

LondonMix, I'm slightly confused at where talk of a nodal point on Northcross Road has come from. Habs only ever said they would look at where an off-site nodal point made sense based on demand. There IS a shortage of provision to the east as much as to the north - there are areas where you can't get into any local secondary except perhaps one of Harris Boys/Girls but heaven help you if your child is the wrong sex. Parent after parent told us this while we were trudging the streets handing out leaflets.

Habs I think changed their admissions under challenge a while back, you're right. Charter didn't change theirs but applied them differently. For what it's worth I hope they end up changing safest walking distance to crow flies for Charter 1 as the current measurement does disadvantage anyone living on an estate!

[bornagain]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Just came back from the Heber consultation. Wow

> there are some angry people. Crazy.

What were people angry about? The position of the nodal points? And what was Charter's response?

[LondonMix]

Yes, for Charter it was the application of the policy.

Someone on the other thread said Northcross.

As you can see nodal points can be very devisive. They are only to be used when there is no school a child is remote,y likely to get into. Harris E.D Boys and Girl are available to many in the east (if not all). Therefore, the threshold for a nodal point being used according to guidance isn't met.

I hope that clearer but let eQually I may be missing your point!

[confusedbyitall]

bornagain Wrote:

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

> rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Just came back from the Heber consultation. Wow

> > there are some angry people. Crazy.

>

> What were people angry about? The position of the

> nodal points? And what was Charter's response?

Please update for those that couldn't make it? Why were people so angry?

[tomskip]

I imagine people might be angry because the site of the new school, if it will prioritise admissions on distance and siblings, doesn't make for a good outcome for those parts of East Dulwich most in need of secondary school places. At the same time it will give two choices for those who happen to live near both schools. As has been repeated again and again, the site of the school is incidental as there was no other site. But that's just what I imagine ... I would be interested to hear more from those present.

[MsMaz]

There was a large, very loudly vocal contingent from Lyndhurst school and some from DKH, who were extremely keen to keep nodal point north. Some of those from the other areas possibly not reached by the Jarvis Road nodal point raised the issue of a second nodal point. But there were about 150 parents in all and obviously pretty much divided equally between the two camps - that's why it was quite animated when discussing admissions! Nothing new was said really...and I think the latter suspect it's a done deal anyway.

[redjam]

I was at the meeting too. Feelings running very high, and frankly I was embarrassed about some of the behaviour of the parents in the room - people shouting over each other, not listening to the answers, noisily insisting on having their questions heard even though they'd run out of time. Like the OP I am saddened by the divisiveness in all this and wish everyone could just take a step back from their own personal positions and see the bigger picture. One of the saddest comments I heard was one woman asking angrily, 'Why should I support this school if I don't even know if my child will get in?'* To me that's absolutely the wrong way to look at this. My feeling is: it's 240 new school places for the area, surely that's good for everyone even if my child personally doesn't get in? Why WOULDN'T you support that? And anyway, it will free up 240 places in other local schools so of course it will still benefit your child indirectly, even if they don't get in themselves.

I have to say I thought the Charter panel were excellent, all of them, and handled what was clearly a difficult meeting very well. Whatever the outcome of the consultation, I really hope that everyone will start pulling together more and get behind what is going to be a great new school.

* This was in reference to the Charter panel encouraging us to tick the box in the consultation to say that you approve of the school being funded by the DFE, which is crucial to the new school opening.

[HannahSE23]

Anger on both sides... the Camberwell contingent who are desperate to cling on to the nodal point in its current position in Jarvis Rd and the ED contingent who believe they have been misinformed by the Charter ED steering group and that the nodal point should be moved south to prevent an overlap of the catchment with the current Charter. Lots of talk of fairness when actually fairness can be skewed each way depending on what suits you and your child best. Heated and a little bit nasty.

[edbloke]

I went to the Heber consultation. The nodal point which will determine admissions was the key point of debate. Unfortunately there were a notable number of people who showed a disregard for a cohesive, respectful discussion, shouting over each other and ignoring the appeals from the discussion chair to respect the procees amd fair debate.

There was also a disproportionate number of vocal attendees from Lyndhurst Primary who were heavily pushing for the nodal point (which will determine the majority of admissions) to be retained in its illustrative position at the extreme north east portion of the entire hospital site.

The irony is at the moment the school does not own any of the hospital site and it still awaits the Dept of Education and NHS agreeing a land transfer deal. Only when this process is complete, will the school understand which portion of the wider hospital site will be allocated to them. So the current nodal point is entirely indicative but as it has now been shown on a plan, emotions are rising as the implications become clear. This is a huge site

There is an online survey available here:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/C696GWC

The first question is:

1. Do you believe there is a need for a new secondary school, in the East Dulwich area, serving pupils aged 11 to 18?

Many people align themselves with areas in London but the boundaries are often difficult to define so out of interest, this is Google's interpretation of East Dulwich:

At the event, in Heber a map was presented showing the location of homes of those who had signed to express an interest in sending their children to the school at the outset of the consultation. The points clearly showed a strong support for the school to the area south and east of the Dulwich Hospital site, i.e. 'the East Dulwich area'.

So if you do live in 'the East Dulwich area' where this school claims to be serving and have any intention of sending your children to this Charter School in the future, I would urge you to get online and register your opinion on the position of the nodal point.

Otherwise the loudest voices informing the consultation will come from those who live outside of 'the East Dulwich area' through clearly orchestrated opinions of those from Lyndhurst Primary. This may seem petty but when it comes to schools choices, if you find yourself in a catchment hole due to the arbitrary positioning of a nodal point, then your kids may end up having to attend and travel to a school far from home, which is in no-ones interest.

The Dulwich hospital site is huge, more than 300m wide which is larger than some entire local primary school catchments! The position of the nodal point will therefore potentially have notable impact of which areas locally have access to this school.

From my perspective, if the school is to genuinely represent the local community, as they claim is their desire, then the nodal point should be in the middle of their plot, when it is finally known. Anything else is skewed in favour of one portion of the community and will always be deemed unfair by those who end up being excluded due to the selection of an arbitrary point on a map.

[bornagain]

The meeting sounds like the unedifying scramble at the beginning of the Boxing Day sales!

I'm afraid it is the recent education policy coming home to roost. Academies and free schools are in control of their own individual admissions policies and Southwark seemingly totally out of the loop of the whole process. There is also an absence of a strategic education body setting a London-wide education plan to coordinate across boroughs (vis Lewisham unilaterally changing it's admission to distance). It's total chaos!

And to cap it all there appears to be an illusion of choice (particularly with the new school opening) when in actual fact there isn't (unless you are prepared to pay).

[colabottle]

There were atleast six councillors at the Heber school meeting tonight. I think three of them had a say, all of whom were from The Lane ward as far as I can remember. The only councillor representing East Dulwich ward who was present was Charlie Smith. Well done Charlie. Where were James Barber and Rosie Shimmell? It's a real shame they weren't there to speak on behalf of their ward. In the spirit of unity, could I make a plea for all the local councillors who feel their wards are effected by the admissions policy, to please get together to discuss the needs of their individual wards and try to influence a fair outcome for all.

[redjam]

The problem with that is that, as was clear from the meeting and the debate on here, there is no consensus as to what the 'right' answer is, so it would be very hard for councillors to speak on behalf of their ward when their wards are so divided. And as a side note, it feels harsh to criticise James Barber when he was the one who got this all off the ground in the first place and has clearly devoted hundreds of hours to the project. And he may well have gone to one of the other two meetings, for all we know.

What I hope is that Charter makes the consultation's results public and makes a decision as quickly as possible (which is what they said they'd do) so we can draw a line under this debate and move on. This has to be a truly democratic process and 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).

Honestly, I wouldn't be on that Charter board for love nor money. They are trying to do a good thing for the community as a whole and they are faced with a roomful of entitled and hostile parents who are giving them grief because the admissions process is not designed solely to their own personal benefit. I for one am very grateful they're plugging away with it; it sounds ilke the very definition of a thankless job. But let's allow the consultation process to speak for itself and then work together to all get behind the school.

[Earl Aelfheah]

redjam Wrote:

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

> I was at the meeting too. Feelings running very

> high, and frankly I was embarrassed about some of

> the behaviour of the parents in the room - people

> shouting over each other, not listening to the

> answers, noisily insisting on having their

> questions heard even though they'd run out of

> time. Like the OP I am saddened by the

> divisiveness in all this and wish everyone could

> just take a step back from their own personal

> positions and see the bigger picture. One of the

> saddest comments I heard was one woman asking

> angrily, 'Why should I support this school if I

> don't even know if my child will get in?'* To me

> that's absolutely the wrong way to look at this.

> My feeling is: it's 240 new school places for the

> area, surely that's good for everyone even if my

> child personally doesn't get in? Why WOULDN'T you

> support that? And anyway, it will free up 240

> places in other local schools so of course it will

> still benefit your child indirectly, even if they

> don't get in themselves.

>

> I have to say I thought the Charter panel were

> excellent, all of them, and handled what was

> clearly a difficult meeting very well. Whatever

> the outcome of the consultation, I really hope

> that everyone will start pulling together more and

> get behind what is going to be a great new

> school.

>

> * This was in reference to the Charter panel

> encouraging us to tick the box in the consultation

> to say that you approve of the school being funded

> by the DFE, which is crucial to the new school

> opening.

This exactly. Some of the views / behaviour was pretty depressing