Primary school places 2010

[James Barber]

Hi bawdy-nan,

I think you asked did Southwark meet its legal obligation to ensure sufficient pre school childcare in place. Yes it did.

Is their a direct relationship between ensuring sufficient pre school childcare places and schools admissions. No their isn't.

The school admissions rates are related to pre school chilcare rates but the variables are numerous between the two and it has been suggested vary wildly in times of turmoil as we've been experiencing.

Hope that more succintly answers your points.

[VikkiM]

Hello, update below that summerises some of the key (but by no means all!) points made at tonight's OSC meeting which Gavin, Renata and myself attended and spoke at.

1. We?re not sure that the council explanation was fully adequate. It should certainly have picked up the fact that there was a problem sooner i.e. before the allocations went out. The council is blaming some of the problems on late applications, but in fact there were only 45 late applications across the whole of the south of the borough. The main issue seems to be that there were too few staff in the admissions team - they have significantly fewer officers in Southwark than in Lewisham for example. Sadly, the council made the decision to have such a small team and it simply wasn?t able to provide the service that most local parents felt they needed. Three additional staff are now being recruited to the team ? two will cover primary admissions and the third will have a communications role. From all the comments made at the meeting, it seems that this should go a long way to resolving many concerns that people had this year. We do hope that the council keeps its promise on this one and that the new staff arrive imminently. Additionally, although we won?t get one uniform application form for all parents in London until next year (for Sept 2011 starters onwards) the Council did agree to work more closely with Lambeth and Lewisham to help free up places earlier in the application process.

2. There was a very lengthy discussion about whether we can be sure that the current ?bulge? in population will revert back to around current levels in approximately 2018/2019. We?re not sure that the council can be any surer about this than they currently are but the committee did note that further investigation of all available figures was needed.

3. There were lots of comments from parents about how confusing the current admissions system is and how this exacerbates problems. Hopefully an increased admissions team will help. Gavin suggested hosting one or several ?schools fayres? at which parents could have face-to-face chats with teachers, find out more about local schools and receive lots of help with negotiating the admissions process.

4. In terms of parents having all the information they need about applying this year and being aware of which schools might have additional ?bulge classes? the suggestion is that this is demand-led. This seemed to be supported by most people present. This would mean that rather than telling parents where additional classes might be, which might encourage second-guessing of where they are most likely to get a place and inadvertently add to some schools being over or under subscribed, seven or eight schools (within the East Dulwich, Nunhead, Peckham Rye and Camberwell area) would be lined-up to take additional classes but only those with the demand for places would end up with the extra classes come next September. The council is also confident that offers of places can be made in March which is much better than the May date previously stated.

5. The current admission rules add to the likelihood of children ending up at a school some distance away from home. Me, along with a couple of others in the room, suggested looking again at these rules as a way of alleviating the current problems. The current system allocates first to children where it is their nearest community school and only after that to children who have another school closer to them. This means that if you live just a little bit too far from your nearest school and you don't get in there, then you stand very little chance with the 2nd, 3rd and 4th nearest (due to this rule) and instead you may be sent to an undersubscribed school a considerable distance away. We don?t know whether there is scope to change this ? tell us what you think.

6. The general consensus was that a new school would not solve the current problems and is also unrealistic. The GLA officer projections for the area are for a few years of baby boom with demand falling back to previous levels in about five years time. It would take nearly that long to build a new school and cost ?10-20m. There also doesn?t seem to be a site where it could be located. The work the council did very recently to find a suitable location for Harris Boys seems to pretty much confirms this final point. So demand-led bulge classes plus a better and bigger admissions department are the proposed solutions.

Do get in touch via [email protected] or Peckham Rye Labour

Victoria.

[FionaC]

Thanks to everyone who came to the meeting last night. As well as councillors and council officers we had lots of parents and heads/governors from most of the local schools. It was a really good opportunity to ask questions, discuss and debate the issues and possible solutions. There were a couple of handouts at the meeting with further information and I'm going to ask for those to go onto the council website asap.

I think Vikki's summary is pretty accurate. We came away with a lot of ideas for recommendations to make to the Executive and over the next couple of weeks I'll be working with our Scrutiny support officers and other members of the committee to get it all written up. I'll post something up when we've got a decent draft.

For me it's clear that the fundamental question for the council to make is whether we are experiencing:

a) a "baby boom" in the south of the borough - which would mean extra places are needed for the next 5 or so years, but then as those children grow up the demand for reception places would drop back again (and more secondary places will be needed!).

OR

b) an increase in the number of children being born and brought up in the area each year which would mean demand for reception places would continue at this new higher level.

If it's the former then the bulge classes are the right way to go, if it's the latter then a new school is needed.

The GLA Statisticians and council officers favour the baby boom theory and therefore the bulge classes - which importantly the education department says can be done by using spare rooms in various larger schools and without putting portacabins on playgrounds.

Beyond 2015 (where we are talking about children who haven't even been conceived) it's all rather too much like gazing into a crystal ball for my liking - but with officers telling us it would take 5 - 7 yrs to get a new primary school planned, funded and built the bottom line is that the council's Executive Committee will have to decide if they believe the projections or if they have a different view.

The councillors on the Scrutiny Committee thought it was crucial that before the Council's Executive takes a decision on this in late November they need to look really closely at exactly what information the projections are based on and what assumptions the statisticians have made. I'm planning to discuss this further with the Head of Education and the Leader of the Council to ensure this is happening.

Fiona

Cllr Fiona Colley

Chair of Overview & Scrutiny Committee

[Coach Beth]

Hello,

I wasn't at the meeting and my child is happily settled into reception this year at Goose Green. But I have been watching the discussions with interest. It is my feeling that the main thing is people are able to get a place at a local school - it was shocking this year how many people were sent to schools very far away. Therefore, it was good that Goodrich put on a buldge class this year - as for many people in the 'black hole' of primary schools, this is their closest school. My conern however is that schools like Goose Green or Bessemer Grange which are in the process of being turned around do not suffer from bulge classes being placed at other schools. We need schools that are mixed - Goose Green this year has a very diverse class intake and more people I know have been considering the school as an option for reception next year. This is a good thing for the kids, school and community!

And, I'm so positive about Goose Green, that yesterday I turned down an offer of a place for my son at Dog Kennel Hill - which came up through the waiting list. I have also taken my son off the waiting list for St. Johns. I spoke to another parent who is sending her daughter to Bessemer Grange - she has done the same in regards to waiting lists. In the Bessemer Granger reception, there are only NINE children in this september intake with another 12 due in January. That school has lots of places available - and although it is abit awkward to get to, it is a local school for the East Dulwich/Camberwell community. And she and the other parents at Bessemer Granger are very happy with the school (and are liking the small class size as well!)

I also wonder at the effect of even 5 years of bulge classes in a school - I'm not sure how sustainable it is. But those are my ramblings before this site goes on hoilday tommorrow!

[James Barber]

Hi FionaC, VikkiM,

I'm afraid your representation of the meeting doesn't reflect my understanding.

Last nights meeting of the councils Overview and Scurtiny Committee was arranged to meet at the East Dulwich Community Centre to discuss the problems East Dulwich parents faced with this years primary schools admissions process with local East Dulwich parents.

Disappointing that barely a handful of parents could attend plus a handful of headteachers and school governors. However, the room was full of councillors, council officers and party political activists. Really thought provoking presentation from Terry Parkin the lead officer accountable for admissions. Lots of searching questions that brought out lots of other facts.

Main points I took from the scrutiny:

- Idea of next admissions process having many pre prepared buldge class options and then activating them depending on parent demand. This de risks any future GLA pupil predictions being wrong while the economy is in such a pickle. It also attempts to maximise parent choice.

- More assurance that the GLA stats people now understand what went wrong this year after 15 years of unblemished near spot on pupil predictions.

- Amazing to hear that Southwark created an extra 45 reception places and still has 17% spares places in less fashionable schools such as the excellent Bessemer Grange. Lambeth and Lewisham had to create 150 extra emergency reception places each, Richmond 210, Enfield a whopping 22 classes totalling 660 reception places. This was shocking and really put into context how well Southwark had coped finding places with a massive London wide issue.

- ?30M being pumped in Southwark Primary schools to physically make them better by Southwark Council and ?25M from central government.

- Southwark schools close to being in top quartile for performance but time lag from when a schools performance soars to when publicly recognised for this. This means some parents are avoiding sending their kids to great schools e.g. Goose Green and the knock on impact this has. Next March schools are predcted to be out of special measures.

- That across Southwark 175 and in greater Dulwich area 22 kids go ?missing? each year. They just don?t show up at the schools places they?ve accepted. This displaces other kids who could have had those places. It also costs the council a whopping ?100,000 each year chasing these down to ensure they are in a school somewhere and are safe and the acceptable school places can be released.

- That quite a few parents received letters stating they'd applied late. But the late status was applied to those that applied late OR changed their application forms.

- That the admissions department has enough officers for a normal year but this abnormal year they were overwhelmed with worried parents. These officers will be increased by three as admissions numbers are bulging for the next 5-6 years.

If you're an East Duwlich parent and this doesn't concu with how you think it went please let me know.

[mrs.lotte]

I agree Beth. The LEA appear to be encouraging parents to apply to oversubscribed schools in order to create a demand for a bulge class. I am very concerned that this is misleading people and that it could only be at the expense of the up and coming such as BG and GG. No doubt it's a vote winner but hardly sensible or principled.

[clux]

the thing that makes me really cross about the whole admissions process is that i initially didn't get a place at any of the 4 schools i applied to. i then got put on a waiting list for these schools but people who applied late, or hadn't applied to these schools at all but wanted to be added to the waiting list, went ahead of my daughter on the list if they lived nearer. surely a fairer system is for priority on the lists to be given to applications made on time and for those people who applied to the school as one of their 4 choices. my daughter was getting pushed further and further down the lists. there was no benefit whatsoever to me having got my application in correctly and on time, or in fact at all, as i could just have rung round 12 schools and put my daughter on the waiting lists once the first round of offers had been made.

[toast]

clux Wrote:

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

> the thing that makes me really cross about the

> whole admissions process is that i initially

> didn't get a place at any of the 4 schools i

> applied to. i then got put on a waiting list for

> these schools but people who applied late, or

> hadn't applied to these schools at all but wanted

> to be added to the waiting list, went ahead of my

> daughter on the list if they lived nearer. surely

> a fairer system is for priority on the lists to be

> given to applications made on time and for those

> people who applied to the school as one of their 4

> choices. my daughter was getting pushed further

> and further down the lists. there was no benefit

> whatsoever to me having got my application in

> correctly and on time, or in fact at all, as i

> could just have rung round 12 schools and put my

> daughter on the waiting lists once the first round

> of offers had been made.

The scrutiny explained that these were siblings who got in on appeal, so lates, but through appeals.

[clux]

Its not just the people who have got places on appeal though, its the people who have put themselves on the waiting list for a school they didn't originally apply to, a long time after the places were first offered, and who go above my daughter. To me this is just not a fair system.

[Laurie Eggleston]

Hi all,

I was also in the audience last night. It was a very detailed meeting, and I look forward to reading the committee?s summary. But I'll try and summarise what, for me, were the key points to take from the meeting.

Parents felt that admissions team weren?t as helpful as they should have been. Letters were sent when a phone call to talk the issues through and answer questions would have been more effective. The admissions team are currently expanding and have taken on the feedback so that next year, they?ll be able to deal with parents much more constructively and compassionately.

The biggest change the council officers acknowledge they need to make is how they market local schools. Schools in special measures are perceived to be no-go areas, but in reality due to the huge extra funds and clearout of staff and governors, they very quickly turn around (Goose Green is on course to come out of special measures next spring). Parents need to be made aware when an improvement is being made, not have to wait and hear it on the grapevine.

Another key action point the officers need to do is to really stress to parents that they actually need to apply, and do so early. There were loads of extra late applications this year, which caused all sorts of problems. Many of which were from parents who claimed they simply didn?t know that they needed to apply (for example from parents with a child already in the attached nursery).

The reasons why a new school is an unrealistic goal were also laid out in detail. They also explained why it wasn?t even the correct goal. The population figures point to the fact that reception pupil numbers will peak in 2015 and then drop down. Although, these figures are open to scrutiny and council officers will need to subject them to detailed analysis and a keep close eye on them. But due to the bulge in numbers it will better to ready several schools to potentially take an extra class and then pick one each year depending on demand (see James Barber?s earlier post). I think this is a great option, as it will take account of schools which improve and have increased demand over the next few years.

Another big talking point was the admissions criteria and how, after the sibling rule is applied first, the ?nearest school? priority sometimes gives unwanted outcomes. I can see how frustrating it would be that a late applying sibling could push an early applicant down the queue, but those are the rules that councils have to follow. VikkiM asks if there?s scope to change this - but it?s not a council procedure that can be changed; as we were told last night, it?s a law set by the national Govt.

It seems like the council officers acknowledged the problems they had this year, but that they are taking steps to do something about them. Preparations are being made so that in future years local schools can be more responsive to changing demand. The officers seemed very open to feedback and suggestions. All of the local schools are improving, and even this year there are still surplus places locally, so hopefully all local schools will soon be seen as an attractive issue.

To the parents that were there last night ? what are your views on the meeting? How useful was it? Is there anything else you?d want answered by council officers?

Thanks,

Laurie

Contact me here:

www.laurieeggleston.org

twitter.com/Laurie1984

[James Barber]

mrs.lotte,

I will be seeking very clear explanations of where buldge classes are proposed and what impacts they are likely to have on schools such as Goose Green. Snookering Goose Green is absolutely not intended. Its official recovery a la Ofsted from Special Measures is a key to avoiding school places issues in the area.

Hi clux,

It seems very unfair that late applications can gazump others on school waiting lists. It encourages playing this legal requirement of our system. It explains how so many 1st round offers were then not accepted and the huge whirly gig that took place and much lesser degree still is. Once all the offers, unaccepted offers and changes settled down 90% ended up at schools within a mile of home and hopefully a school they are happy with.

[James Barber]

As we all know this years Primary School admissions has been painful. Quite out of the blue we have had unhappy parents. 120 appeals, 8 upheld from over 2,500 applications.

I?ve asked council officers how many cases councillors and MP?s referred to them for help:

Labour 13 - councillors 5, Harriet Harman MP 3, Tessa Jowell MP 5.

Liberal Democrats 35 - councillors 14, Simon Hughes MP 21.

Convervative 1.

Total 46.

[FionaC]

I'm a bit reluctant to post now, because I think this forum is beginning to be dominated by politicians. But anyway...

Coach Beth & Mrs Lotte - one of the really good things about the Scrutiny meeting was that Head of Bessemer Grange was at the meeting and so we heard first hand about this knock on effect where some schools have ended up with fewer children in their reception classes than they had planned for. That influenced me to think it would be best if the Council had schools on stand-by for bulge classes, but only actually decide if, and where, there should be bulge classes after the applications have been received and analysed.

Laurie - I think you've rather missed Vikki's point, which was also raised by a number of parents at the meeting and certainly isn't something that is set down in law.

Laurie wrote:

"Another big talking point was the admissions criteria and how, after the sibling rule is applied first, the ?nearest school? priority sometimes gives unwanted outcomes. I can see how frustrating it would be that a late applying sibling could push an early applicant down the queue, but those are the rules that councils have to follow. VikkiM asks if there?s scope to change this - but it?s not a council procedure that can be changed; as we were told last night, it?s a law set by the national Govt."

You seem to have conflated the issues of the late applying siblings (which I agree is outside the council's hands) and the distance rules. The issue Vikki was raising was that the way Southwark treats the distance rules is different to other nearby boroughs and could be working against some East Dulwich parents. Southwark Council splits the distance rule into two categories - firstly it allocates to those children for whom the school is their nearest community school and only after all of those children have been given places are any other children considered (by which time there may be no places left). Although this is a perfectly well intended rule (to encourage parents to apply to their nearest school), in the East Dulwich area it could mean that if parents were closest to say Heber, but because of the very small "catchment" they didn't get in to Heber they would then be disadvantaged when the Council was looking at applications to their second closest school.

I've looked at some other boroughs' rules and they treat the distance rule rather differently so evidently these rules are not laid down by the government. I think if you also take the time to a look at these rules you'll have a better understanding of the point that's being made. Here are some links.

Southwark (p22)

Lewisham

Croydon

Greenwich

Lewisham's is most similar to Southwark's, but seems to allow greater discretion to the admissions team, which I think could be really useful in Southwark. I hope that once you've had a chance to have a proper look at this that you'll agree with me that Southwark's rules could be improved.

I don't think there was actually very much disagreement at the meeting between councillors or candidates from the different parties and I'm really hoping that we will be able to reach a consensus view across all the political parties on a final set of recommendations from Scrutiny - that would be by far the most constructive and effective outcome.

Fiona

Cllr Fiona Colley

Chair of Overview & Scrutiny Committee

Labour Member for Nunhead Ward

[mrs.lotte]

Fiona and James; thank you for your messages, you obviously understand and agree with the point that i make which is great. I do hope that parents making applications now are not mis-led into thinking that bulge classes will automatically be added to the most popular schools or we will see even more disappointed parents next year.

[toast]

Thanks Fiona, hope your point gets through.

Briefly a parents view of the meeting.

1. No talk of 'blips', lots of talk of 'bulges'! This is a real problem which is going to grow for at least the next few years.

2. No new school, very sensible reasons (based on current population projections)

3. Bulge classes to be responsive to demand when known, (again seemed sensible to me but will be very short notice, hard to get right teacher?)

4. Those who put their nearest school as first choice and dont get in are at a significant disadvantage for other near schools, (legality of highlighting those effected unclear). Will increasingly be a problem over next few years.

5. The idea of a time lag was highlighted, and the ability of parents to make a difference. The govenor of Heber attended and spoke of their measures to get the school from (nearly?) special measures to where it is today, spoke of standing outside the school with coffee pots to welcome parents in to open evenings. Bessimer Grange sounds fab, Goose Green is getting back on its feet and may well fly with new head, newly strengthened staff, extra money, increasingly mixed intake etc. Takes time for the strengths of a school to be known to new parents, and schools can turn around fast.

Idealy we would like a school we could walk to, and still hope we do, but so long as parents get their 'local' school ED and the Rye could end up with loads of excellent schools.

If anyone has further news once the forum is closed they could be posted in the facebook page.

[TJMP]

JBARBER Wrote:

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

> As we all know this years Primary School admissions has been painful. Quite out of the blue

> we have had unhappy parents. 120 appeals, 8 upheld from over 2,500 applications.

>

> I?ve asked council officers how many cases councillors and MP?s referred to them for help:

>

> Labour 13 - councillors 5, Harriet Harman MP 3, Tessa Jowell MP 5.

> Liberal Democrats 35 - councillors 14, Simon Hughes MP 21.

> Convervative 1.

>

> Total 46.

This analysis misrepresents the scale of the problem this year in the East Dulwich area. The fact is that Tessa dealt with a considerably larger number of cases than the 5 implied above.

Tessa held a meeting with local parents which was attended by parents/carers/grandparents with responsibility for 18 children. In total Tessa acted directly in 24 cases representing 25 children (just Southwark primary transfer cases). This closely equates to the equivalent of a single form of entry in the local area and it is, of course, unlikely that every single affected parent came to Tessa for help.

A major issue, apart from inadequate planning for extra places in the south of the borough, was a totally unacceptable level of communication with parents who were facing an extremely stressful situation. Southwark was contrasted in its approach with neighbouring boroughs and described by parents as being "completely overloaded and under-resourced", "unhelpful", "in need of hassling", "impersonal", "very poor and rude", "not human", "grumpy", "lamentable" and "aggressive".

Much of the support Tessa helped to provide was in facilitating a dialogue with Pauline Armour of Southwark Education - who responded well to the challenge. From feedback she has received I think that many parents appreciated the efforts Tessa made to help break down the communication barrier. This certainly alleviated some of the feelings of stress and helplessness that parents had suffered.

Tessa Jowell MP (Office)

[toast]

With the best will in the world communication is not going to create more school places.

edited to add an e

[CT Wac]

Do you think Tessa logs in to the ed forum?

[mrs.lotte]

EVERYONE logs on to the forum!

I do understand what you say toast but from a personal point of view when we were in the depths of despair over primary allocations Tessa Jowell was the only person of any influence who gave the impression that she gave a toss and we really appreciated it.

[hoipolloi]

Ditto

[Jessie]

yes, agreed. Tessa Jowell's support (and that of her office) was invaluable earlier this year.

[toast]

Didnt mean to diss the Jowell, just more interested in action than talk, and i do recognise that she took action!

She and Fiona Colley rock.

[juliap]

Hello

Just read through most of this thread and there is a lot to take in.

Certainly feels like this year's experience is unlikely to prove a one-off so good to see that provision is being made to cope with further increase in demand in the coming years.

I am wondering about a couple of things:

1) presumably it costs an awful lot of money to set up bulge classes. If Bessemer Grange is suffering from a lack of pupils and would be considered by many parents if they could actually reach it, would it not be possible to set up a school bus system to take East Dulwich pupils there and back each day? I have no idea if this is feasible or even desirable, but it seems like another option. They used to do this at my primary school.

2) Will the local religious schools be considered for bulge classes alongside the community schools? Or are the exempt because they have different admissions criteria?

thanks in advance

[VikkiM]

I'm really curious about juliap point 2 above as it crossed my mind as I left the meeting on the 12 Oct. Will try to look into this - though others may already know or be on the case?

At the meeting on 12 Oct, St. Johns and St. Clements was listed as a possibility for a temporary bulge and St Anthony's and St Mary Madalene were both listed as potential places for permenant bulges, though they would require extension to do this.

[ClareC]

How close do you need to live to a school to be sure you will get a place there? I am a few years off having to worry about this but having read the thread it sounds as though the problem isn't going away any time soon! I am currently 200m from Heber and 300m from Goodrich - this is according to google map walking directions not as the crow flys! As the crow fly's Goodrich is probably the same distance but Heber would be 100m max.

Do I need to start planning my escape to the country master plan!