'Charter East Dulwich' Consultation - call for unity

[Mick Mac]

MsMaz Wrote:

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

> My last post was referring to MickMac's post about

> ensuring there is no overlap of Charter 1 and 2's

> catchment - a few posts sneaked inbetween quickly!

>

>

> I think it's the fact that Charter have refused to

> tackle the problems that this large overlap

> causes, that have caused all the fighting about

> nodal points, because people are worried the

> catchment won't go very far, especially after a

> few years.

>

> RedJam, yes the overlap does matter for those with

> younger kids as eventually the areas around the

> hospital site will become Charter 2 catchment.

> Charter 1 may expand a bit because of this but in

> ALL directions, so borderline areas may still not

> get into either Charter 1 or 2 and you may end up

> with a better chance of getting into Charter 1

> from Tulse Hill and Brixton...

At last - someone who can rationalise. thx.

[LondonMix]

I think people are talking at cross purposes.

MicMac and MsMaz both seem to have the underlying assumption that this school was created for the postal area SE22 or the political ward of East Dulwich. What makes you think that is or should be the aim of the school's intake? Honest question. I've scanned through the material from Charter and their description has always been more or less

"The Charter School East Dulwich will be a co-educational, non-selective, non-faith, inclusive 11-18 secondary school, delivering the highest quality education for young people in its immediate diverse locality where there is a shortage of secondary school places from 2016 onwards." From the Charter website.

ETA: Until that underlying assumption is clarified, I think trying to understand the rest of suggestions is impossible.

[Gubodge]

Lily, the same letter has been given to me at Goodrich (twice now) including at a meeting about secondary school transfers, so directly targeting the yr 5 parent whose children could form the first cohort at the new school. I was also buttonholed outside the school today about it, and did not receive a particularly friendly response when I said I supported the nodal point being on the school site. The letter has also been emailed to all parents by the PTA. While it is not the school itself that has been lobbying, the claims that there has been no organised campaign for an eastern nodal point are, to be honest, bullshit.

[MsMaz]

Hi LondonMix,

No we are not assuming that at all, in fact, my point was that the catchment would actually go further north, east and south if the overlap was avoided - so would benefit anyone on any of those borderline areas. This is particularly for those with younger kids, as the effect I described will be over a period of time, especially as the catchment shrinks.

They won't go for it anyway so all theoretical.

[*Bob*]

You can't blame a lot of people for being disappointed. The language has always been 'New School East Dulwich'. And then somehow conflated to 'New School For East Dulwich.'

Too much assumption, not enough reading of the the actual submission - which as mentioned above - has always been what it's been.

East Dulwich could do with new train station too - the current one's in the wrong place as well.

[Mick Mac]

Gubodge Wrote:

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

> Lily, the same letter has been given to me at

> Goodrich (twice now) including at a meeting about

> secondary school transfers, so directly targeting

> the yr 5 parent whose children could form the

> first cohort at the new school. I was also

> buttonholed outside the school today about it, and

> did not receive a particularly friendly response

> when I said I supported the nodal point being on

> the school site. The letter has also been emailed

> to all parents by the PTA. While it is not the

> school itself that has been lobbying, the claims

> that there has been no organised campaign for an

> eastern nodal point are, to be honest, bullshit.

And is there anything wrong with highlighting the issue so that these issues are raised within the consultation deadline. I'd imagine a lot of people in the Goodrich school catchment area feel rather strongly about losing out on this opportunity.

[Mick Mac]

MsMaz Wrote:

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

> I think your points 1 and 2 to stop overlapping

> catchment (which is massive) and thus maintaining

> the existing Charter 1 catchment, is an excellent

> proposal. And is much better than fighting about

> nodal points - as that way, everyone who is on the

> borders or beyond of potential catchments and

> fighting on this forum would actually be much more

> likely to get in (wherever the nodal point) as it

> would stretch the catchment further north, east

> and south.

>

Well let's hope the Charter team can see the merits of this. thx.

[LondonMix]

Agree Bob.

Ms Maz. What I find hard to understand then is why the overlap is a problem. The new school, will create 240 new places in the south of Southwark where the need is. It is well positioned to do so. The need isn't greater in any particular part of the south of the borough. Therefore, as long as 240 students attend, it will be fulling its purpose.

The new school will create enough school places that other local school catchments should not shrink dramatically ensuring more children continue to have the opportunity to attend a secondary school within a relatively short commuting time of their home.

Your and MicMac's statements seem to suggest you think the school was designed to solve a lack of Charter School places rather than deal with an increase in demand for secondary school places more generally. The idea isn't to spread Charter school places around the borough evenly-- and a second nodal point in SE22 wouldn't really spread it evenly anyway but rather prioritise access for this postcode.

As long as the school is full, its fulling its purpose and mandate.

[MsMaz]

It's Ms not Mrs...

[Gubodge]

No, MsMaz, there isn't anything wrong with it at all, but to suggest it's not happening is naive at best.

[Mick Mac]

LondonMix Wrote:

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

>

> Mrs Maz. What I find hard to understand then is

> why the overlap is a problem.

Really? Still?

[LondonMix]

How on earth would you prevent someone naming the new Charter as their first preference because they might be able to get the Charter in Redpost Hill?

You are basically suggesting the two schools act as one school for admissions(with each physical school being a nodal point for admissions purposes) and then assign everyone to Redpost Hill thus eliminating anyone going to Charter ED who could get into Redpost Hill. The goal presumably would be to expand the catchment to the east and south of the hospital site. This would limit Charter Redpost Hill's catchment from expanding to the west as well (or really at all).

Besides being logistically complicated, this consultation can't change the admissions policy of an existing school. Also, they are two separate schools and you can't combine them this way or force children who want to attend the ED school to attend the Redpost Hill school. This proposal would also almost certainly been seen as an illegal manipulation of intake as it serves no legitimate purpose except to increase certain parents chances of getting in. The Admissions Code doesn't recognise a shortage of 'Charter Schools' as a legitimate reason to diverge so radically from normal guidelines on fair admissions.

I'm so happy someone in government had the foresight to ensure that the Admission Code would apply to free schools. If it was entirely consultation based the results would be bonkers.

Mick Mac Wrote:

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

> MsMaz Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I think your points 1 and 2 to stop overlapping

> > catchment (which is massive) and thus

> maintaining

> > the existing Charter 1 catchment, is an

> excellent

> > proposal. And is much better than fighting

> about

> > nodal points - as that way, everyone who is on

> the

> > borders or beyond of potential catchments and

> > fighting on this forum would actually be much

> more

> > likely to get in (wherever the nodal point) as

> it

> > would stretch the catchment further north, east

> > and south.

> >

>

> Well let's hope the Charter team can see the

> merits of this. thx.

[MsMaz]

No, MsMaz, there isn't anything wrong with it at all, but to suggest it's not happening is naive at best.

I think you got the wrong poster here - you meant Mick Mac's post. I didn't post on the lobbying at all. I was having a different conversation about catchment overlaps, not nodal points or lobbying. I am not involved in your conversation at all and would like to remain neutral on lobbying, so can you take back your post please.

[LondonMix]

Yes of course still. The purpose of the new school isn't to spread Charter school places to East Dulwich. Its to create 240 new school places in the South of the borough to deal with a surge in demand starting next year.

Under your argument, you could say we need to manipulate the intake of Habs Hatcham so children in SE22 can get in as we have a lack of Hatcham places available in SE22. Its bonkers. Admission policy isn't designed to create these kinds of outcomes.

Mick Mac Wrote:

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

> LondonMix Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> >

> > Mrs Maz. What I find hard to understand then

> is

> > why the overlap is a problem.

>

> Really? Still?

[LondonMix]

And to add, I don't disagree that where you live is always the fairest way to determine access to schools. That's why the Sutton Trust advocates lotteries which gives everyone an equal chance of getting into any school.

However, what you are proposing is a specific manipulation of the distance criteria not to give everyone an equal chance but to increase your child's specific chance of getting in. While every parent can understand that impulse, you have to see that can't be the basis of a community asset's access policy.

[Gubodge]

Sorry, MsMaz. Yes, my post should have been directed to Mick Mac.

[MsMaz]

Actually we are way out of any catchment so it wouldn't benefit my child but I understand it would seem like too much of a manipulation and I do accept a lot of your points - as it is extremely complicated. And I also would much prefer to see a lottery and banding system with all schools, including this one. I am not pro-distance at all. The system is already bonkers when every school in Southwark has different admissions criteria, and could well be using it skew/manipulate etc, etc,

[LondonMix]

Corrected!

MsMaz Wrote:

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

> It's Ms not Mrs...

[HannahSE23]

Charter have ruled out any lottery based system. At the consultation at Heber I remember the head saying that lotteries have been shown not to benefit schools academically, so we know where they're going with that...! It would seem like a fairer option, however.

[LondonMix]

Agree and my post was mostly directed to MicMack. I also hope it doesn't come across as a personal attack on anyone. I 100% understand the impulse to fight for access to what you think is the best option for your family.

MsMaz Wrote:

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

> Actually we are way out of any catchment so it

> wouldn't benefit my child but I understand it

> would seem like too much of a manipulation and I

> do accept a lot of your points - as it is

> extremely complicated. And I also would much

> prefer to see a lottery and banding system with

> all schools, including this one. I am not

> pro-distance at all. The system is already bonkers

> when every school in Southwark has different

> admissions criteria, and could well be using it

> skew/manipulate etc, etc,

[Mick Mac]

LondonMix - I'm wondering what your reason is for debating this issue, in the way that you are doing it, on a local ED forum? Is it purely a technical argument on fair education provision for Southwark?

You perhaps don't care who benefits from this school, so long as someone in Southwark does. We all know that extra places are extra places, someone/some area will be better off.

My arguments are for a favourable solution that most benefits the people of East Dulwich. The overlap in catchment is bad for East Dulwich.

I highlight my personal position - although I'm hoping/expecting to be within the catchment I use my own position to help highlight the issue where my family or other people living close to us could well lose out.

Long before this process I argued on this forum for a secondary school for East Dulwich. This remains what I want and the catchment can achieve this.

That's what I'm trying to achieve. I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve other than restating the obvious benefits of additional Southward places.

[LondonMix]

Hi MickMac--

I hoped the discussion would focus on areas where legally the Charter has flexibility to make modifications that would influence the composition and ethos of the intake-- SEN, siblings, banding, and lottery.

That people repeatedly are asking for an admission policy that is primarily focused on ensuring they get in, is what it is.

I don't define my community based on my postcode. I want a policy that is fair for the broader community. Even parents that don't get into the new Charter school benefit from it indirectly as it prevents other school catchments from shrinking when the increase demand kicks in and should support it.

There are quite a few people who live in SE22 that are taking a similar perspective on the admission policy. Being from ED doesn't mean you have to advocate for something you feel is unfair or illegal.

I am in SE22 by the way, pretty much right in the heart of ED.

[redjam]

Mick Mack - there is a shortage of non-faith, co-ed school places in Camberwell. Do you think it's fair if a child in Camberwell loses out on a place to an East Dulwich child who lives further away?

If your answer is 'Well, it was East Dulwich parents who first called for this school,' would an East Dulwich-biased admissions policy still be fair in ten years' time when all those founding parents' children have left the school?

I live in East Dulwich, before you ask.

[Mick Mac]

LondonMix Wrote:

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

> Hi MickMac--

>

> I hoped the discussion would focus on areas where

> legally the Charter has flexibility to make

> modifications that would influence the composition

> and ethos of the intake-- SEN, siblings, banding,

> and lottery.

>

and are you therefore involved in the process in some way, or just interested in the debate?

[Otta]

An East Dulwich School for East Dulwich children. It's like a middle class London version of League of Gentlemen.