Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The demographics of ED seem to be changing quite rapidly and better schooling is needed.


I would not be interested in more Academies. I'm interested in approrpiate schooling for middle income professional families.


Academies are provided in the area but I believe their mandate is generally focused on education of deprived areas and that is a specialised form of education. In general ED to me is not a deprived area and needs higher geared schooling.


I would however like however to hear the view of James as to how the secondary schooling is being improved to meet the improving demographics of the area.

I fink hall kyds to mix lyke a "social experiment"--( I cut 'n pasted that phrase cos I can't rite propa) but i fink iz realy good that em clevor kyds from Dylwych go to skool in Peckham and playses. lay will sea lyfe as it iz.

They can len keep it real, yougetme?

My teechur said it aint bout xams but learnin to spake to everyone innit.

Innit?


After all if Tony Blair, Harriet Harperson and Diane Abbott can send their kids to the local "Academy" then so can you Guys.:X


p.i.s My Mum rote dat lyne above..

I think I probably agree in essence with what Mick is trying to say, but the wording got my back up a bit.


Children from different backgrounds may require different things out of an education. But to say that middle class kids should get a "better" education... perhaps it's just an unfortunate choice of words... but it's just plain wrong.

But I don't read Mick Mac's post that way, is he not just asking for more schools in general for the growing general population which happens to be a middle-class population ? I too don't think we need more academies, but we do need another school or two in the area. Call me a snob.


I didn't read the original thread so probably shouldn't comment, but it seems a bit unfair to take it out of context.

I read it as people with more money need better schooling for this kids because they can afford to live in a "better" area. That is wrong, and I am not being PC in saying that (Quids). It's a very very Tory style elitist thing to say. Unless I've got it all wrong. Just for the record, middle class kids are not born more academic, or brighter. This sort of thing would just widen the gap.
Children from deprived backgrounds and children of wealthy families are well catered for in Dulwich. Middle income families cannot afford private education and Academies, if labour is honest, are geared at deprived areas. There is therefore a gap in schooling provided in Dulwich.

Mick

Do you think that 'deprived background' children need different kinds of schools than middle class families?



Mick Mac Wrote:

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

> Children from deprived backgrounds and children of

> wealthy families are well catered for in Dulwich.

> Middle income families cannot afford private

> education and Academies, if labour is honest, are

> geared at deprived areas. There is therefore a gap

> in schooling provided in Dulwich.

Mic mac

I could not tell my 'deprived' neighbour in Dulwich that because of my background..(middle class) that their child should go to a different school than my own kids. What if they wanted to 'aspire' and not go to some crappy academy?

I understand that you want your kids to go to a good school but dont most people??

I just don't understand what you want Mick. The best for your kids is obvious, and understandable, but I don't get why you think there should be different schools for different classes. And what about the really clever kid living in a council estate, should s/he apply for a special place in your middle class school, or just go to the working class school?


Sorry mate, but I am shocked at what you seem to be suggesting.

Keef Wrote:

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

> I read it as people with more money need better

> schooling for this kids because they can afford to

> live in a "better" area. That is wrong, and I am

> not being PC in saying that (Quids). It's a very

> very Tory style elitist thing to say. Unless I've

> got it all wrong. Just for the record, middle

> class kids are not born more academic, or

> brighter. This sort of thing would just widen the

> gap.



Keef - I have always voted Labour and never Tory.


I believe in good schooling for all. I believe Academies are a good idea to raise aspirations in deprived areas.


I also believe in the Grammar school system - therefore I don't believe that throwing all children of all abilities in together works in all areas.


I want a school that is right for ED, the people who live in ED and aimed at their childrens abilites.


I don't believe I should have to pay for private education to get that. I don't want to move to Kent, I like ED.

Like jeremy said, I think Mick's only mistake was in the wording where I think he said 'better demographic'...Am i going to send my kids to one of the academies with their current results and deprivation scores? No. Does this mean they are bad schools, not neccessarily, does that make me a snob, no, but my kids are middle-class kids with middle class parents (there I said it mockney) with 'middle class apirations including giving them the best education possible (within the state system). I don't think the academies are delivering that for a whole bucket of reasons - so the choice for many - who have the luxury of choice - is basically to go private or move out. Some schools which weren't just 'targeted' at inner city deprivation with traditionally poor results, would benefit all in the community, including working class kids Keef, and reflect the changing demography of the southern part of the borough....and I think that is what MM is getting at (correct me if I'm wrong MM). I don't think MM envisages having someone on the gate checking to see if kids coming in drop their aiches or say toilet like wot I do.


One cap fits all eh or you're a snob?

Keef Wrote:

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

> I just don't understand what you want Mick. The

> best for your kids is obvious, and understandable,

> but I don't get why you think there should be

> different schools for different classes. And what

> about the really clever kid living in a council

> estate, should s/he apply for a special place in

> your middle class school, or just go to the

> working class school?

>

> Sorry mate, but I am shocked at what you seem to

> be suggesting.



That's ok Keef - noones going to fall out over this, I respect your opinion. Maybe I'm not putting mine very well.

I understand this may make me appear snobbish, it obviously does.


Perhaps its better put in terms of I agree with streaming in education. Bright kids are best challenged at more demanding schools. More demanding schools are not the best place for less intelligent pupils as they can fall behind. I don't agree that schools for all abilities work best for all children.


The government caters specifically for deprived areas, but when was the lasttime they built a new secondary for ED that was not an academy (I don't know the answer).


Our primary schools are being forced to take large amounts of extra pupils this year, the problem is going to hit ED secondary education in 5 or so years time. I think this should be planned for now or people will be forced to continue to leave ED, which I think is a shame.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Does anyone know when the next SNT meeting is? I am fed up with my son being mugged on East Dulwich Grove! 
    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
    • Well, this is very disappointing. Malabar Feast  has changed its menu again. The delicious fish curry with sea bass no longer exists. There is now a fish dish with raw mango, which doesn't appeal. I had dal and spinach instead, which was bland (which I suppose I could/should have predicted). One of my visitors had a "vegetable Biriani" which contained hardly any vegetables. Along with it came two extremely tiny pieces of poppadom in a large paper bag.   This was embarrassing, as I had been singing Malabar's praises and recommending we ordered from there. The other mains and the parathas were OK, but I doubt we will be ordering from there again. My granddaughters wisely opted for Yard Sale pizzas, which were fine. Has anybody else had a similar recent poor (or indeed good!)  experience at Malabar Feast?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...