'Charter East Dulwich' Consultation - call for unity

[intexasatthe moment]

" The whole project has been built on the idea of a community school "

I thought the whole project was based on it being a Free School where ,as I understand it , evidenced demand is the first priority and location of the site is secondary . A situation which ,to me ,is highly likely to lead to people wanting nodal points .

It seems pointless to argue that it's a community school - the debate over the location of the nodal point/s is a debate over what constitutes this community . The school is funded by public money ,our money . That's a pretty big community .

This mess is the result of a fragmented education system - how many of us protested or campaigned when all of Southwark's secondary schools were being handed over to individuals . How many championed the move to take education out of Southwark's control ? And now primary schools are going the same way .

I can't see a way out of the chaos but at the very least we need to be asking questions about Southwark's desire/ability to co ordinate/influence admission policies and lobbying our MP's for a London wide secondary school admission system .

[pork chop]

"as I understand it , evidenced demand is the first priority..."

That is entirely where the problem lies. Charter do not have a stated policy of positioning the nodal point towards areas of greatest need. At the Heber meeting we heard loud and clear that the choice to put it in the East was to place it at the end of the new school away from the existing Charter (and nothing else). It has become a north-south debate because of the move to a north east position. If an off-centre nodal point is applied then what is required is to move it to exactly where Charter's policy requires it to be - the part of the school nearest the East, which is neither north nor south. ie. somewhere in the middle but on the Eastern side.

If a different policy is applied of looking at areas of need then a new debate would start with all manor of stats, heat maps, surveys and everything else thrown around, and there are indications from the survey response shown at the meeting that it would then move to the South East.

[LondonMix]

Evidenced demand is required to show the school is viable, not to create priority admission to the school for those that signed the campaign.

Southwark already defined where the need is which is the South of Southwark. This need of course also needs to be stated as part of the application to show the school is req and won't undermine the financial viability of existing schools.

These criterion exist to prevent schools opening where there are no expected shortages of places offering specialisms and philosophies no one is interested in. Remember the initial idea was that Free schools would be innovative and experimental.

The confusion seems to be that some parents feel that by signing up to the campaign they were guaranteeing themselves admission. That is not how the system works and if anyone from either school led them to believe otherwise, that was really inappropriate.

My guess is it was probably a misunderstanding though rather than the Charter intentionally misleading people as their posts on the forum were pretty clear.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Is there a simple map anywhere which shows (roughly) the catchment areas for secondaries in Duwlich and environs? It's very difficult to have a sensible, informed debate about where the right place for a 'nodal point' is, without a clear understanding of where the often discussed 'black holes' in provision really are.

[intexasatthe moment]

" The confusion seems to be that some parents feel that by signing up to the campaign they were guaranteeing themselves admission "

I find it hard to believe that people are really that ill informed . I don't think it's confusion or misleading advice ,I think it's the desire to get one's child into a " good " school and the perception of what a good school is .

But having said that a system where the area/s of demand is one thing and the location of the school another is always going to lead to a debate about the oversubscrition admissions policy .

Not really relevant here but I don't think I do remember Free Schools being set up to be innovative and experimental . Freedom from following the national curriculum ,changing term times ,setting salary rates and so on was already enjoyed by Academies . I thought the " rationale " was to give parents the freedom to set up schools where they were unhappy with the existing offer ,to give " choice " where parents thought they had none .To drive up standards by introducing competition . All that illusory ,expensive ,divisive ,chaos making guff .

[largeginandtonic]

Charter were clear in their bid doc about what their proposed admissions policy would be for their proposed school - as the crow flies distance. At the earlier round of meetings before the bid went in, I thought they were pretty clear that they planned on measuring this from the Eastern boundary, mid-way between the North and South. It was therefore apparent from the beginning that a Charter School (if selected over Habs) would be a school for children in ED, South Camberwell and parts of Peckham.

The school which the ED parental campaign put forward was Habs, not Charter. I'm guessing that Habs were prepared to have an off-site nodal point somewhere in ED? So if a parent preferred the Habs bid, it would obviously be reasonable for that parent to be disappointed that Habs were not approved and to be disappointed that this was likely to mean a different admissions approach. And if Habs had been approved, but then changed their mind about an off-site nodal point, then it would be reasonable to be cross with Habs and make all these points about how their school was the result of the ED parental campaign etc.

But the new Charter School does NOT result from the ED parental campaign! Charter put in an independent bid with parental support, having not been selected by the ED parental steering group who favoured Habs instead.

Some people are suggesting that the Charter school should now change its proposed admissions policy to better fit in with the wishes of the parental steering group (and its supporters) who decided against backing the Charter School in the first place. What are the suggested reasons for this? They tend to fall within one of the following:

1. This would be somehow the "right thing to do" given that the school "results" from the ED parental campaign. This reason is misconceived - the steering group rejected Charter and it put in a rival bid.

2. The issue of where the need is. This would be a much better reason than reason 1 but it seems impossible to get into any accurate granular detail about it not least because, as London Mix says, need is assessed in the whole of south Southwark by the Council. It's probably fair to say that all areas around the school badly want and need this new school apart from those living in the catchment of the existing Charter.

3. The name of the school. Um. Right. Just humouring this reason for a minute, don't we have Forest Hill Boys and Sydenham Girls more or less next to each other? Ok well at least one of those needs to change it's name then to reflect their intended intake or kids living in ED can't attend either of those schools. Shall we say that Goodrich and Heber can only take kids living on those very roads? Because it says Goodrich and Heber - no mention of Barry Road!! This is not a good reason. The school is in East Dulwich so it would be daft to choose a name which suggested it was located somewhere else!

We all want our kids to get into this new school. We were lucky to have two really good providers bidding for the chance to open a school. I completely understand the disappointment from parents who wanted the Habs bid, but on the positive side (assuming they were mostly parents of kids in years 4 and 5) it looks as if the catchment could be pretty wide initially given that it will surely take a few years before the sibling places reach the proportion they have in the existing charter school.

[bornagain]

intexasatthe moment Wrote:

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

> Not really relevant here but I don't think I do

> remember Free Schools being set up to be

> innovative and experimental . Freedom from

> following the national curriculum ,changing term

> times ,setting salary rates and so on was already

> enjoyed by Academies . I thought the " rationale "

> was to give parents the freedom to set up schools

> where they were unhappy with the existing offer

> ,to give " choice " where parents thought they had

> none .To drive up standards by introducing

> competition . All that illusory ,expensive

> ,divisive ,chaos making guff .

Free schools system as set up by the Coalition is apparently to give parental choice but in actuality is a way of wrestling education control out of the hands of the local authority into those of the central government. It seems ludicrous that the final approval for them should be given by the Secretary of State for Education who is very distant from the community the school is created to serve leading to all sorts of problems. Free schools exist for reasons of ideology.

Consequently local authorities have become more and more ineffective in planning and organising the local education provision leading to the kind of situation we have now in ED. It is unfair to blame Southwark when they do not have any statuatory powers over the free schools and academies in their area.

Because free schools have to engage with the local parents to prove that there is a local need for the kind of education they are planning, it leads to a mistaken view that the school is primarily for the parents that have engaged in the proposal. And hence to all this divisive arguments about nodal points.

[LondonMix]

I agree with much of that to be honest with you but am trying not be provocative :)

The free school program was part of the Big Society idea. Basically, the idea was that parents know what schools should be offering-- specialisms in the art, particular ethos / philosophies etc better than the LA. Turns out at least around here people don't want anything fancy.

One of the key criteria along side which free schools are assessed is if there is a need for one and support for one. 15 free school applications have been cancelled because a suitable site couldn't be found so I don't think the site location doesn't matter. Having some idea of which site you could use is part of the initial application process.

The real point is that the Dulwich Hospital site is a perfect site. If only the people who signed the petition wanted to attend, its within reasonable commuting distance for secondary school. That the community anticipate lots of people want to attend is even better. The schools won't be undersubscribed and its in an areas of identified need.

intexasatthe moment Wrote:

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

> " The confusion seems to be that some parents feel

> that by signing up to the campaign they were

> guaranteeing themselves admission "

>

> I find it hard to believe that people are really

> that ill informed . I don't think it's confusion

> or misleading advice ,I think it's the desire to

> get one's child into a " good " school and the

> perception of what a good school is .

>

> But having said that a system where the area/s of

> demand is one thing and the location of the school

> another is always going to lead to a debate about

> the oversubscrition admissions policy .

>

> Not really relevant here but I don't think I do

> remember Free Schools being set up to be

> innovative and experimental . Freedom from

> following the national curriculum ,changing term

> times ,setting salary rates and so on was already

> enjoyed by Academies . I thought the " rationale "

> was to give parents the freedom to set up schools

> where they were unhappy with the existing offer

> ,to give " choice " where parents thought they had

> none .To drive up standards by introducing

> competition . All that illusory ,expensive

> ,divisive ,chaos making guff .

[LondonMix]

Based on the furthest distance offered last year, there is no secondary school blackhole anywhere under discussion.

People in Nunhead, the Eastside of East Dulwich and the South of East Dulwich have multiple schools (a few of which are closer to them than the actual hospital site) that they can get into both in Southwark and across the border in Lewisham. I posted the catchments in an earlier post.

There is a shortage of Charter School places of course, but that's not the same thing!

This situation absolutely does not meet the threshold for creating nodal points based on government guidance to Free Schools on fair admissions policies. There needs to be limited to no access to any school and with Harris ED Girls and Boys that can't be argued even without all the other schools that children can attend nearby (of which there are both co-ed and non-co-ed options).

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Is there a simple map anywhere which shows

> (roughly) the catchment areas for secondaries in

> Duwlich and environs? It's very difficult to have

> a sensible, informed debate about where the right

> place for a 'nodal point' is, without a clear

> understanding of where the often discussed 'black

> holes' in provision really are.

[intexasatthe moment]

largeginandtonic - that's very interesting ,I'd not considered it from that point of view . I think you make very valid points .

london mix - I think I'll just agree to disagree with you about the rationale behind the introduction of free schools .And the lower priority given to the location of free school as compared to demand . Note I'm saying lower priority not " the location doesn't matter " .

I note your concern that the introduction of nodal points for this school would be against government guidelines ( I wonder though what ,if any ,action would be taken to prevent their use ) .

Maybe introducing zoned catchment areas ( like Bacon's College and Harris Crystal Palace ) would be an alternative that would reassure parents ?

[Earl Aelfheah]

Thanks LondonMix. It seems to me logical that the admissions would be based on distance from the school and the desire to limit the amount of 'overlap' between the two Charter Schools makes sense.

It's a shame that there isn't more easily accessible info on secondary catchments and more co-ordination / standardisation of admission policies. As I understand it Harris girls are looking to move to a lottery, which could have an impact in the south of ED.

LondonMix Wrote:

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

> Based on the furthest distance offered last year,

> there is no secondary school blackhole anywhere

> under discussion.

>

> People in Nunhead, the Eastside of East Dulwich

> and the South of East Dulwich have multiple

> schools (a few of which are closer to them than

> the actual hospital site) that they can get into

> both in Southwark and across the border in

> Lewisham. I posted the catchments in an earlier

> post.

>

> There is a shortage of Charter School places of

> course, but that's not the same thing!

>

> This situation absolutely does not meet the

> threshold for creating nodal points based on

> government guidance to Free Schools on fair

> admissions policies. There needs to be limited to

> no access to any school and with Harris ED Girls

> and Boys that can't be argued even without all the

> other schools that children can attend nearby (of

> which there are both co-ed and non-co-ed

> options).

>

>

>

>

> rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Is there a simple map anywhere which shows

> > (roughly) the catchment areas for secondaries

> in

> > Duwlich and environs? It's very difficult to

> have

> > a sensible, informed debate about where the

> right

> > place for a 'nodal point' is, without a clear

> > understanding of where the often discussed

> 'black

> > holes' in provision really are.

[James Barber]

We really need to have a meeting of minds on this.

Their will be enough public consultations and planning applications, etc that a strongly divided community could really cause problems for our new local secondary school opening.

The implied assumption of lump it for supporters of one of the two applications - could incentivise them to respond to the consultation that it shouldn't go ahead. We all lose with this potential risk.

If as some suggest the original proposal was mid the eastern boundary then hopefully the proposal will at least return to that.

But with nodal points causing such division I hope they drop the idea. The difference for supporters from DKH would be sub 200m. The supporters of a nodal point much further SEE would be more. But at least using a traditional school point to measure would be seen to be easier to understand, fairer and not appear totally arbitrary to some strong faction.

[LondonMix]

Harris Crystal Palace allocate 90% of their places within a 2 mile radius of the school via lottery. The remaining 10% are a lottery beyond 2 miles.

I suggested a zoned lottery on the other thread but no one seemed to like the idea. Parents don't want an equal chance of getting in. They want to get in, which is understandable.

I agree that demand is the most important criteria for the free school system. We can agree to disagree about the rationale though they were definitely part of the Big Society program.

If challenged by a parent or Southwark via the Adjudicator, I think the nodal point would be reversed. The Adjudicator does actually rule against schools and in this case the situation would be fairly black and white. Besides the 'legality' of it though, I think the Admissions code is right. You can't have certain vocal groups arguing for greater access to schools believed to be better. Its clearly an unfair way to set admissions policy and is naturally divisive.

[James Barber]

I broadly agree with you LM.

The EFA chose one application for a new secondary school for East Dulwich. Both applications clearly showed need.

If they felt each had covered a different geographic area then they could have asked both to proceed. So that makes me conclude that mostly it's the same supporters from the same areas.

[LondonMix]

There will be distance based admission within 1 km of the ED Harris Girls and outside of that it will be a lottery. There are also other girl schools that serve the South of ED.

I don't think distance is the only thing that's fair and neither does the Admission Code. A lottery is fair as it means no one can simply buy a place in a good school by moving next door to it- everyone has an equal shot at any school. Banding is fair as it furthers the aim of making education more comprehensive. A combination of these things all can and serve a broader social goal.

What would not be fair is if certain vocal and engaged people could advocate to get special access to a school. Admissions arrangements cannot be determined by which group of parents organise themselves best. That would clearly have access to the best schools dominated by the most organised and socially engaged (typically middle class) parents which isn't fair to children whose parents can't or don't do the same. It would also be impossibly divisive.

Personally, I think all admissions should be a ability banded lottery coordinated at borough level. That way, access to education would be genuinely fair for all and people wouldn't be able to move into a postcode with good schools and completely disengage from what was happening elsewhere in the city. However, London schools are doing well enough without such extreme measures and so I think distance is fine and most people prefer the greater certainty it offers.

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Thanks LondonMix. It seems to me logical that the

> admissions would be based on distance from the

> school and the desire to limit the amount of

> 'overlap' between the two Charter Schools makes

> sense.

>

> It's a shame that there isn't more easily

> accessible info on secondary catchments and more

> co-ordination / standardisation of admission

> policies. As I understand it Harris girls are

> looking to move to a lottery, which could have an

> impact in the south of ED.

>

> LondonMix Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Based on the furthest distance offered last

> year,

> > there is no secondary school blackhole anywhere

> > under discussion.

> >

> > People in Nunhead, the Eastside of East Dulwich

> > and the South of East Dulwich have multiple

> > schools (a few of which are closer to them than

> > the actual hospital site) that they can get

> into

> > both in Southwark and across the border in

> > Lewisham. I posted the catchments in an

> earlier

> > post.

> >

> > There is a shortage of Charter School places of

> > course, but that's not the same thing!

> >

> > This situation absolutely does not meet the

> > threshold for creating nodal points based on

> > government guidance to Free Schools on fair

> > admissions policies. There needs to be limited

> to

> > no access to any school and with Harris ED

> Girls

> > and Boys that can't be argued even without all

> the

> > other schools that children can attend nearby

> (of

> > which there are both co-ed and non-co-ed

> > options).

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > rahrahrah Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > Is there a simple map anywhere which shows

> > > (roughly) the catchment areas for secondaries

> > in

> > > Duwlich and environs? It's very difficult to

> > have

> > > a sensible, informed debate about where the

> > right

> > > place for a 'nodal point' is, without a clear

> > > understanding of where the often discussed

> > 'black

> > > holes' in provision really are.

[intexasatthe moment]

Zoned catchment areas - just an idea ,an alternative to the nodal points which parents seem keen on .

Doesn't have to be the same as Harris CP - 90 % and 10% or by lottery within those zones .

Bacon's ( as I'm sure is known ) is non lottery ,banded and a 75% /25% split .

Presumably the percentage within the zones and the size of zones can be varied .

Again ,not relevant here but aren't Harris ED girls seeking an off site admissions point ?Is that the same as nodal ?Or different because it's between ED Harris Girls and ED Harris Boys ? So I guess this will be open to challenge ?

[LondonMix]

I don't know what that was based on so I can't say. Harris were initially pushing for 100% lottery and the outcome of the consultation was to keep a distance component with the nodal point you describe. It might have something to do with the co-ed 6th form shared between the two schools- so picking a point between them has some rationale.

There might be arguments in that situation that could make sense but I don't know what parents argued for or what Harris explained during that consultation.

I think Renata was involved so I'm sure she can shed some more light.

[LondonMix]

Also, I think Bacon's is a lottery. They have an inner and outer catchment. They have bands but allocation within each band is random allocation just like Harris. Once you are inside the inner catchment, it doesn't matter where you live.

Bacon is basically adopting a banded lottery within a fairly large inner catchment as does Harris Crystal Palace. The lottery section of Harris ED will also be in ability bands.

ETA: I am not against banded lotteries but I'm not sure how effective they are when they aren't utilised very broadly across a significant area. When individual schools do it ad hoc, it feels like it will be less effective and create distortions.

[intexasatthe moment]

Not to get lost in detail about other school's admission policies ,the point I was trying to make is that zoned catchment areas with admission numbers split between inner and outer geographical areas might be an option for concerned parents .And one that presumably avoids the legitimacy concerns surrounding nodal points .

[henryb]

Just a question but wouldn't aiming for a larger catchment area resolves many of these disrupts. If there is an over subscribed school whatever criteria is used could seem unfair to people who don't get in.

[intexasatthe moment]

I think zoned catchment areas where it's stated that say 50% ( or whatever % is deemed reasonable ) of places will be allocated to an inner area and 50% to an outer area would guarantee a wider catchment area .And stop the catchment area shrinking completely as/if the school becomes more popular .

But I could be way off the mark .

[Trine Adams]

What leaves a bad taste in my mouth is the underhand non-community inclusive tactics being used by some schools and a councillor (not even in this ward); much of which is inflammatory and seemingly based on fabricated information. I'm sick of it all, school networks should be working together, should remain informative and not 'in it for themselves' thus creating a rift in the aforementioned community.

As stated in my OP, this is a call for some calm in the community to which this new school is set to serve. Irrespective of who started the campaign or what Charter did or didn't say when gaining support in their bid, this is a consultation, to find the wider thoughts, views and opinions of the community as a whole.

Nothing is set in stone at this stage, the policies are all 'proposed' and people and Charter need to be open to change, otherwise what's the point in a consultation in the first place?

[nicetomeetyou]

In the spirit of unity, I personally hope that once Charter arrives at their decision on their admissions policy, we in the community will accept it with grace. Some people will inevitably be disappointed - there aren't unlimited places, after all. And then, as the OP says, everyone should work together to help make this the best school it can be.

[FatherJack]

nicetomeetyou Wrote:

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

> In the spirit of unity, I personally hope that

> once Charter arrives at their decision on their

> admissions policy, we in the community will accept

> it with grace. Some people will inevitably be

> disappointed - there aren't unlimited places,

> after all. And then, as the OP says, everyone

> should work together to help make this the best

> school it can be.

Hear!! Hear!!

[championofthehill]

I am of the opinion that the OP has a bit of a personal axe to grind. It reads to me not so much as a call for unity, as a call for one section of the community to keep quiet.

The original people proposing an alternative/additional nodal point off site seem to have realised that they are fighting a losing battle. Their argument was that there would be too much overlap between the catchment of the two Charter Schools. The new push seems to be that the nodal point should now be shifted from Jarvis Road to some other on-site point to the centre or the south of the site.

At the consultation meetings it was made clear that the Jarvis Road point was picked to minimise the overlap between the two Charter Schools.

I would like to make it clear that the area around the Dog Kennel Hill Estate and the Champion Hill and Cleve Hall Estates are currently largely excluded from Charter Red Post Hill's catchment due to its shortest safe walking route policy. If the new Charter's nodal point is shifted to the south of the proposed point in Jarvis Road, these children will, once again, find themselves disadvantaged in the school's admissions policy.

I do not have children who will benefit from this, mine are all older so I have seen at first hand how difficult this process is for children in my area. I am not "in it for myself" and that accusation leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.