Take a virtual tour of the new Harris Academy

[bignumber5]

Bringing up the old thread was a bit below the belt, consider that reference retracted.

But can you please say what you'd want from a school on that site that this one doesn't have? Or what it has that you'd rather it didn't?

[*Bob*]

bignumber5 Wrote:

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

> But can you please say what you'd want from a

> school on that site that this one doesn't have?

Well I'd like one with with few exclusions, great exam results, low truancy, a good disciplinary record, excellent sports facilities, high placement into higher education, enthusiastic involvement on the part of parents and governors.. that sort-of thing.

Suppose I'm just a snob too.

[annaj]

No-one is saying it's wrong or snobby to want the best for your child *Bob*, as well you know, but what I don't understand is why Mick Mac is so sure that a school that hasn't even opened yet can't provide this.

Is it too simplistic to say that if "aspirational" ED parents send their gifted children to this new local school and take the opportunity to get involved then it could be sucessful?

Anyway, I can see that we're only a few posts away from someone asking me if I have children then telling me I couldn't possibly understand, so I'll leave it, but I still don't understand why what could be a positive addition to the area is being so entirely written off.

[intexasatthe moment]

Personally I have serious misgivings about Academies .Multi million buildings are handed over to sponsors who now do not have to part with any cash at all.

Public money ,our taxes ,back projects which are run by organisations who are not accountable in the same way as community schools.

We do not know the amount Lord Harris has given as this information is deemed to be commercially sensitive and withheld.

We do know that Academies are outside the Freedom of Information Act , and can determine admissions policies and the curriculum. Academies have to ?have regard ? to the SEN code of practice . Sounds ok ,but why are they not required ,as community schools are ,to follow the code ?

Parents of children attending community schools have some say in the running of the school,some redress when they are aggrieved or have a complaint because such schools have balanced Governing Bodies.

The funding agreements for Harris Academies show that the Governing Body ? shall have ? 11 sponsor governors ,1 staff governor, and 1 parent governor. Some Academies have no staff representation at all.

I could go on ,the generous start up funds and right not to take excluded pupils in the first years of an Academy?s life ,the introduction of GNVQ where 1 GNVQ is equal to 4 GCSE passes all of which artificially inflate the success of Academies.

This article says more if people are interested.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2007/apr/03/schools.newschools

But with regard to this particular Academy I think people feel let down by Southwark.

There was local support for a mixed secondary school in East Dulwich. Rather than meet this need ,an all girls school was opened on the much larger site in Homestall Rd .The original proposal for the Friern Rd site was for a much lower figure but this slowly increased to the 900 odd it is now.The original proposal was for the two schools to have one head and for the sixth form to be based in Homestall Rd.

Now we have a small site with a huge number of children . To manage the site it is proposed to stagger the start and finish times for different years. Proposals to bus children to off site PE facilties talk of arranging PE lessons at the end of the day and before lunch . I suppose it won?t matter if staff and children miss some of their lunch time .And the staff won't have much redress if they're unhappy - their salaries and conditions of employment are determined by that Sponsor dominated Governing Body.

The shiny Harris presentation might look good ( I personally don?t think it does ) but this is not the school that many people wanted.

[intexasatthe moment]

Mick Mac - you were asking about girls schools .

This thread may be of interest

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?25,253238,page=1

Although ,like " onthe edge " it cites Prendergast and Haberdashers which aren't exactly open to many children from East Dulwich.

Kingsdale is highly recommended by people these days.

[DagmarJ]

I got involved in the EDGE campaign last year, when it's focus had changed from originally campaigning for a secondary school in East Dulwich to a campaign trying to stop the plans for a 900 boys academy (and hoping to achieve what was originally the goal, a mixed community secondary for ED).

The campaign for additional secondary school provision goes back a long way and a lot of people have campaigned and put in their sweat and tears. What most of those people wanted was a mixed community school for East Dulwich, ideally by joining the upper site at the top of the park (nowadays Harris Girls) with the lower site and have one school across both sites. Initial figures for the lower site always suggested an occupancy of 600 to a maximum of 700. This then turned over the years into first the girls school becoming an academy and then academy suddenly being the only option for the lower site also (a way for the council to get extra funding but giving away control anti-academy will argue). Also, there was some resistance - at least in the past when those decision were taken - at the girls school about becoming mixed. As Southwark has an imbalance between girls-only (3) and boys-only schools (1) the decision was then to make this a boys school and only have the sixth form as mixed boys and girls. From the Council's point of view it sort of makes sense, the overprovision for girls means that the mixed schools have a higher proportion of boys, but of course, that doesn't quite help us locals who don't see totally gender segregated education as the way forward.

Futhermore, originally there was supposed to be one head across the schools with some mixed teaching but that all got lost on the way. By last year, even though there were still a lot of people concerned about what eventually was on offer (and of course new people like myself who didn't have all of the history and the baggage) all decisions were effectively taken. We did try and get the planning application stopped to halt the process in the hope this would allow time to review matters and turn some decisions round, but that didn't work and so that was that.

As some others on this thread, I also have my doubts that the kids there will be really locals as a lot of families would think twice of sending their boy to a boys only school and a vocationally focussed academy at that. I know I will when it will be time for my son. And of course, if they don't fill the space as ED parents either choose to leave the area or go private or suddenly discover god (though not sure that matters any longer at secondary??), catchment doesn't mean anything and kids can come from anywhere.

I also have my doubt that the promises made that Peckham Park will not be used by the school for sports (I have in principle not a problem with this, it seems daft that a sports academy can't use the adjacent park but apparently - and I trust Friends of Peckham Rye in that respect - it is overused as it is and can't take any more). This will mean a lot of bussing to and from the site and I can't quite believe that that won't affect how much and what outdoor sport provision will be available.

In terms of the numbers, the internal space appears to be sufficient (i.e within guidelines) but outside is an issue and break times as well as start and finish times will be staggered which secondary school teachers say causes constant commotion in a school and can be very disruptive. Hopefully as this is a totally new design and they knew of the constraints at least the site should support this in the best possible way.

I might of course be proved wrong, and the place becomes a fantastic school, both academically and socially developing our boys into wonderful adults. In that case, I'd still be against academies as I do not believe the mantra that the private sector is per se better at 'management', but I'd also be very happy and gladly eat my hat.

Sorry for the long post, hope it makes sense, the old EDGE website is still hanging around in the webosphere EDGE website, it's totally out of date but has some historic info if anybody is interested.

Dagmar

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

I also have my doubt that the promises made that Peckham Park will not be used by the school for sports (I have in principle not a problem with this, it seems daft that a sports academy can't use the adjacent park but apparently - and I trust Friends of Peckham Rye in that respect - it is overused as it is and can't take any more). This will mean a lot of bussing to and from the site and I can't quite believe that that won't affect how much and what outdoor sport provision will be available. /quote]

I can't help thinking you've been misinformed Dagmar. I walk on the Rye twice a day and the sports area is not overused. In the past few weeks I've seen one javelin lesson, one relay baton technique lesson, one distance running lesson and one game of rounders. In each case there were no more than a dozen girls.

I appreciate that I'm not there all the time but nothing I've seen so far suggests overuse. I can't see that there would be a problem with the boys using the area as well - it's a pretty big place and all users seem to rub along well together.

I've seen more activity from joggers using the track. I've even used it to trounce my daughter at 100m sprint! I think having a sports area is a great addition in the summer and it would be lovely to see it used more by local schoolchildren.

[Just need to nag Friends of Peckham for a decent wicket and we'd have the best park in London.]

[reetpetite]

I cant see the problem of the schoolboys useing the park for sport its not as if they will be unsupervised .As long as they are and the teachers also respect our park then thats fine .Afterall thats what its there for ..for all the community and that includes schools.

[pearl1]

Thank you Dagmarj, for a thoroughly reasonable summing up of the situation.

[Jeremy]

ronniemama Wrote:

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

> ED station is in camberwell after all......

Ah no... no it's not. Close though.

Mick Mac Wrote:

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

> ok i dont mind being called a snob if that is how

> you interpret my dissatisfaction at the available

> education in ed.

I didn't mean to *call* you a snob, just pointing out that that's how you may have come across. I thought you were saying that this school belongs in Peckham instead of East Dulwich, indicating that you have a narrow minded view of residents in both postcodes. But it seems as though I misunderstood, in which case I apologise.

[pearl1]

Yes it is - camberwell starts just after goose green.....there's a great big sign up that says so

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> ronniemama Wrote:

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

> -----

> > ED station is in camberwell after all......

>

> Ah no... no it's not. Close though.

>

>

>

[Jeremy]

Station Address:

East Dulwich Station

Grove Vale

London

SE22 8EF

(taken from http://www.infotransport.co.uk/trains/station/594)

Also check out this map which shows postcode borders:

http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?x=533449&y=175375&z=0&sv=SE22+8EF&st=2&pc=SE22+8EF&mapp=map.srf&searchp=ids.srf

The station and DKH estate are in East Dulwich. The SE5 border comes just before Grove Hill Road.

[Eileen]

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote:

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

> I can't help thinking you've been misinformed

> Dagmar. I walk on the Rye twice a day and the

> sports area is not overused. In the past few weeks

> I've seen one javelin lesson, one relay baton

> technique lesson, one distance running lesson and

> one game of rounders. In each case there were no

> more than a dozen girls.>

> I appreciate that I'm not there all the time but

> nothing I've seen so far suggests overuse. I can't

> see that there would be a problem with the boys

> using the area as well - it's a pretty big place

> and all users seem to rub along well together.

> I've seen more activity from joggers using the

> track. I've even used it to trounce my daughter at

> 100m sprint! I think having a sports area is a

> great addition in the summer and it would be

> lovely to see it used more by local

> schoolchildren.

The *overuse* issue is not about quantity but that the ground (ie earth) is overused and can't take more activity without damage. It gets damaged and then has to be closed to all use to recover.

>

>

[antijen]

I agree intexasatthemo, I do not believe the goverment is to be trusted in handing over our childrens education to private sponsers and although this may seem like a fairly new idea it is not, in the mid 90's there was the P.F.I. (private financial initiative). When W.S. Atkins pulled out of a 5yr contract after 2yrs with Southwark Council, to manage Southwark schools, people were up in arms. This happened a week after Charles Clark, secretary of state for education, warned leaders of local authorities if they didnt run schools more efficiently, management would be handed over to the private sector. Yet W.S Atkins walked away without any penalties, I believe they were given the contract regardless of having no experience, and when told this through there bidding process what did they do, they hired an education expert from Southwark Council, won the contract, then hired this man back to Southwark Council. You couldn't make this up, if this was your average joe on the street I'm sure he'd be doing a lie down in Wormwood scrubs, but its alright for them with there dodgy deals with our money. I do not believe our childrens education is of much importance to the goverment, they will happily take it out of the public sector, who knows they may get McDonalds to open a school in Dulwich for girls.

[antijen]

annaj Sorry wrong link, this one will tell you more about why people so upset.

http://www.antiacademies.org.uk/

[thebeard]

Politicians only care about educating THEIR OWN children as we have all seen. Private education for politicians precious ones?

Consecutive governments couldn?t give a DAMN about non-academic children.

WHERE are our technical colleges????

Where are the trade colleges?

Unlike Germany and France, WE have no structured respected technical institutions to educate the children who are better with their hands than their brains.

There is no reason for companies to train up apprentices.

What do the lower achieving kids have little to look forward to other than working in Sainsbury?s stacking shelves or signing on for job seekers allowance and joining a local gang?

There is no aspiration for them to become anything.

We can?t even teach kids the basics of running their own business ?

Basics like organising time, materials, and schedualing.

Never mind understanding self-employed taxation

And worst basic maths working out areas and lists.

For example.

Geography taught here doesn?t include learning the map of the UK or the globe no tough tests for students requiring them to trace the outline and plot major cities around the UK let alone Europe and the rest of the world.

The majority of our children are and have been falling behind the rest of the world for many years.

It would appear that politicians only care about the very bright and their own kids.

We should offer something for every child then maybe we?d have a more civilised society with fewer feral youths and a halt to a generation of uneducated families who could benefit the whole of society rather than drag us back towards the Middle Ages.

[intexasatthe moment]

Good points ,thebeard.

[Marmora Man]

Beard, could it be that the virtually monopolistic provider of education in the country (Government) has screwed it up?

They do it better elsewhere, particularly Sweden - where state funds are made available to individuals and organisations seeking to establish independent schools. Michael Gove is proposing something similar for the future.

See para 3 of Funding Swedish Schools

[pearl1]

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> Station Address:

> East Dulwich Station

> Grove Vale

> London

> SE22 8EF

>

> (taken from

> http://www.infotransport.co.uk/trains/station/594)

>

>

> Also check out this map which shows postcode

> borders:

> http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?x=533449&y=1753

> 75&z=0&sv=SE22+8EF&st=2&pc=SE22+8EF&mapp=map.srf&s

> earchp=ids.srf

>

> The station and DKH estate are in East Dulwich.

> The SE5 border comes just before Grove Hill Road.

But the big sign opposite the garage at Goose Green says 'Welcome to Camberwell' suggesting that anything past that, heading up to the station is in Camberwell; also the council ward of Camberwell South encompasses the station.

This is a bit confusing.....

[Jeremy]

This indicates that the sign is in the wrong place! Check out the road signs heading up the hill... St Francis Road, Quorn Road, Edgar Kail Way... all SE22.

[EmmaG]

Wow, it looks absolutely fantastic. Not sure about the sliding dividers between classrooms though as it means if you're doing a noisy activity of watching a vid (or shouting) it disturbes next door. Wonder why they need classrooms for 60 boys anyway ... a glimpse of the future perhaps. Lots of stairs to lug your resources up. Lots of space given over to a large atrium - not sure if that's particularly good use of space or if it's good for sound insulation. Nitpicking a lot here: the breezeblock walls are no good for sticking pictures on and it's the pictures that show what the boys have been doing in school.

Anyway, it's the people inside the building that make a school good/bad/indifferent, not the building itself. Let's hope we get some super people as our neighbours and don't have the bus-vandalising ones we had before. I've really enjoyed being able to get on a 63 at any time without having to watch my timings to avoid the foul language, aggression and anti-social behaviour commonplace during the last incarnation of the school.

Fingers crossed and thumbs up!

[EmmaG]

> "900 young men between 11 and 18" - 11 year old men?

> the 'man' term is used so loosely these days - i saw

> a headline the other day of 'man stabs teenager' and

> they were both 19.

God, some people will pick an argument about anything, won't they?

Boys at secondary school can, and are, referred to as "young men". Indeed I call them "chaps", "gents", "lads" to their faces and "boys", "youngsters", "kids" and "young men" when referring to them.

[EmmaG]

Mick Mack - I agree wholeheartedly with your rant.

[EmmaG]

To address some of the points made about the school accommodation; I work in a boys' secondary school of 850 in a site built for about 400.

The boys do "pour out" at the end of the day. Most rush off to catch their buses and ride their bikes off to whereever they're going. Many more stay behind for basketball, art club, cineclub (my club!!), etc, etc. They do disperse quite quickly. Several of them do muck around and misbehave when outside school. It is the school's job is to deal with this.

I don't know how they're going to manage the boys' breaks and lunches. Ours already spend all their breaks queuing to be served in the canteen and at the sheddy things in the playground that sell snacks. Upper school (Y10+) are allowed out to go to Greggs and Burger King for lunch in order to relieve the pressure on the canteen

Boys definitely need a place to kick or bounce a ball around. Ours have a smallish playground. Can't see evidence of one of these at Harris. I think this is a big issue.

[intexasatthe moment]

EmmaG - the statement that was sent in with the planning application says that start and finish times for school day ,breaks and lunch ,will all be staggered.

I would have thought that this will take up quite a lot of staff time to manage and seems to me to be tantatmount to admitting that the site is too small for the numbers involved.

But I've never worked in a secondary boys school so my thoughts might be wrong!