Harris Academy (new boys school for East Dulwich)

[buggie]

Does anyone live near the girls school, charter or kingsdale schools??

I've not seen threads on here complaining about either of these schools before - surely if living near a school was so troublesome it would have been mentioned on the forum before as I can't see why this school would be any different to those already existing. Being such a built up area there isn't going to be anywhere that a school of the size needed could go without being near houses/residential areas.

[katgod]

I support a new school, and agree that the site of an old school seems a great spot for a new one. My concern, based on what I have read here and on the EDGE site, is about sports facilities. I'd like my son, who is likely to be of the age to attend this school, to be able to play football, rugby, cricket, athletics at school. This should not be the preserve solely of the private schools. All children should be able to play sport at school and I don't see how this is possible on the plans as set out. If the plans are to include use of the Rye, then set that out and show which bits and how much. We risk a badly behaved , obese bunch of Academians otherwise.

[Frenchy]

Yes yes yes to a new school but no no no to the size of this one. Four storeys high... mmm that'll look lovely next to the Victorian terraces and what a nice view for them (I don't live in one of them by the way). Why can't we just have a school the size (area and pupils) thats in keeping with the area and that works with the community. I don't think that many people living nearby would want their kids to go to a school where they'll be crammed in with little outside space.

[Asset]

I live right next to Alleyns and JAGS and pretty close to the Charter with probably a combined population of about 2500 kids, if not more. Yes there is the 'mum scum' as we like to call them in our house, ramming their 4x4's up and down the street, parking atrociously (gives us something to laugh at) but it's only for about 15 mins twice a day and apart from that I have absolutely no complaints, no problems with the kids, litter, anything really.

I think a new non-fee paying school in ED is pretty desperately needed. It does look like it will be lacking in outside space from the picture but the Charter doesn't have much either.

I agree that it is NIMBYism in action.

[Frenchy]

I might be wrong but I think they plan to use the facilities out of school hours/term time.

[Ko]

At secondary school I went to (outside London) - we played hockey, football etc and did cross-country running in the park next door.

Did orienteering in another park down the road.

Had tennis courts that doubled as netball courts. Autumn was gymnastics in the gym. Were off-site activities like canoeing and golf.

Use Peckham Rye Park for sports!!! Also, does Waverley have any sports facilites that can be shared?

[buggie]

I would like to guess, with the sports acadamey based just up the road at the Harris girls school it would be daft for the boys not to use those facilities, thus, not needing to replicate them at their school (same as there could be facilites at the new school the girls should use).

[Keef]

Not much to say other than I'm for the school, and with the seemingly high number of young kids in the area right now, it will be needed in a few years!

[Keef]

Oh, and any boy that gets driven to school by his mum deserves to get a good beating when he gets through the school gates! ;-)

[BigDad]

Harris doesn't want the girls and boys to mix so are keeping them separate from what I've heard. Mind you Harris play their cards so close to their chest its difficult to know exactly what is going on. Anyway - if its supposed to be a SPORTS academy, where are the SPORTS facilities? If there are 950 teenage boys squashed onto that site theres not going to be much room for anything to be done. Anyway what do we want to have - a school that would work that you'd actually want to send your kids to, or a school for the sake of it that will go down hill so fast because its cramped, oppressive and a lack of facilities.....

[macroban]

> I would like to guess, with the sports academy based just up the road at the Harris girls school it would be daft for the boys not to use those facilities, thus, not needing to replicate them at their school (same as there could be facilites at the new school the girls should use).

That would be a good outcome - if there were a suitable number of pupils on the boys' site.

However, consider this slippery slope scenario:

1. The boys' academy goes ahead with 950 pupils anyway. As legal entities these "academy schools" seem to pretty immune to such trivia as local consultation, local "democracy", consideration for residents, and planning restrictions.

2. To bring the academy up to scratch it is allowed to make a land-grab for more or less five acres of Peckham Rye Park West-side. Fives acres is a little awarkward, so it might as well be a little more. A convenient boundary would be the footpath that runs more or less parallel to Peckham Rye (road).

3. The children need to be protected from East Dulwich residents so a fence along the footpath would be helpful. A little razor-wire on top would protect the academy's new playing fields from disaffected residents.

4. A precedent is set.

5. The girls' academy decides to expand to 950 pupils. A financial package is pieced together.

6. This academy is allowed to make a land-grab for more or less five acres of Peckham Rye Park East-side. The adventure playground and the football pitches will do nicely.

7. Girls need more protection than boys so the area just must be fenced off.

8. The pleasant walk through Peckham Rye Park from Homestall Road to Peckham Rye no longer exists.

9. Now the original Honor Oak School playing fields and gardens can be sold off to developers and fund the extra school buildings for a further 600 pupils.

10. It is discovered that a re-configuration of the playing fields frees up a strip of land along the North side of Homestall and Colyton Roads. Might as well build some more housing units. It only seems right to have houses on both sides of Colyton Road.

11. Might as well call the new housing development on the Waverley site Homestall Gardens. It will need to be gated as it is pretty near Nunhead. One in 15 units will need to be social housing, but hedge-fund managers and such-like can be classed as key-workers.

12. The Aquarius Golf Club lease expires in 2012 (does it?). No need to renew this. Now the Homestall Road backlands have housing a little more would do no harm. Well, at least on those parts of the golf course that are not laid over the water reservoir. It's only a nine-hole golf course anyway.

13. Thames Water engineers work out how to build housing over the reservoir.

[Oglandia]

Anyone know when it's supposed to open?

[buggie]

BigDad Wrote:

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

> Anyway - if its supposed to be a SPORTS

> academy, where are the SPORTS facilities?

I stated in my post that the girls school is a sports academy - not aware of the proposed boys academy being a sports academy too.

[*Bob*]

Wait, everyone..

I have a great idea! Let's make it 8 storeys high, not 4. That way we can cram in 2500 kids, which means more cash for Harris! How about 12 storeys high with a cherry on top?! Why should I care, it's NIMBY. Won't affect me. My kids probably won't even go there.

Let's base all future schoolbuilding on the marketing principals of 'Richer Sounds': "Pile 'em high and sell 'em cheap".

Incidentally, I'm not against the Harris Academy. I'd rather it was something else, but it isn't so we'll take what we can. But I do feel for the (immediate) residents now being tarred with the NIMBY brush for having the sheer audacity to suggest that 4 storeys butting-up to the bottom of their gardens (without consultation) isn't exactly fair.

[Dulwich_ Park_ Fairy]

*Bob* Wrote:

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

> Wait, everyone..

> I have a great idea! Let's make it 8 storeys high,

> not 4. That way we can cram in 2500 kids, which

> means more cash for Harris! How about 12 storeys

> high with a cherry on top?! Why should I care,

> it's NIMBY. Won't affect me. My kids probably

> won't even go there.

> Let's base all future schoolbuilding on the

> marketing principals of 'Richer Sounds': "Pile 'em

> high and sell 'em cheap".

>

> Incidentally, I'm not against the Harris Academy.

> I'd rather it was something else, but it isn't so

> we'll take what we can. But I do feel for the

> (immediate) residents now being tarred with the

> NIMBY brush for having the sheer audacity to

> suggest that 4 storeys butting-up to the bottom of

> their gardens (without consultation) isn't exactly

> fair.

Thing is, everyone seems to agree that East Dulwich desperately needs a secondary school. The general feeling is that 950 places is going to be insufficient anyway so its a bit of a myth that the school is going to have its numbers inflated purely in order to get more cash. Now I'm sorry for the residents who are going to have their nice garden views "destroyed" by this monstrosity but where else are you going to put it? The site makes perfect sense being a derelict school already. Furthermore, once you get used to these dreadful state school kids rampaging around your streets you may find that it actually brings a lot to the area, especially to local businesses. In terms of commerce its a pretty uninspiring area at the moment.

[Keef]

Before Aske's got all mixed up, it was a boys school and a girls school with mixed 6th form. they'd use each others facilities for various things, and join forces for things like music. worked really well. That's what could happen here...

[*Bob*]

Funny thing about NIMBYism is it works on two levels.

There are the NIMBYs who care because it's in their back yard. But there are also the NIMBYs who don't care because it isn't in their back yard.

We are talking about 4 storeys, literally (and I do mean literally) metres from the end of someone's back garden, presented as a 'here's how it's gonna be' a week before the plans were submitted. How d'ya like that for a consultation process, people?!

Why not 6 storeys* on two thirds of the plot, with a two storey annexe on the residents side - for 1400 pupils? Or one for 750 pupils on three levels? Or any number of other fairer options?

*maybe not 6.. I might be able to see it from my house if it were that high, and I'm always looking after Number One.

[Dulwich_ Park_ Fairy]

We're talking about a school not luxury flats or a shopping centre. Children need to go to school, this area has seen a huge influx of families over the past 5-10yrs and, as it is, secondary school provision is woefully inadequate. Building a one storey school with a capacity of say 300 kids would be sheer folly and only benefit those who own property in its very close proximity. This school will have a positive effect on "greater" East Dulwich and as there is no way of pleasing everyone, some people will have to be inconvenienced for the greater good of the community they live in. Alternatively, they could build an underground school on the site.

[tiddles]

Yes we need a school desperately (and hopefully my boy will go there) but its the usual cock-up of the way they go about it. Want a school? well shut up and this is how it is going to be......

basically, the school should go on the existing site, but it sounds like it is going to be a big project squeezed in. I'm sorry, but why shouldn't the local residents be cheesed off if it seriously impacts on their environment/gardens??? Consultation is the way (as it was with the elm green/elm court thinghy over in west dulwich). This was a parent lead thing so everyone had a say. Of course there will be people unhappy with the outcome - no matter what, If the council can find a way to cock it up, they will. And please don;t squash every dissenting voice with being a nimby = let people have their say and let there be a grown up discussion about it

[*Bob*]

My position: build the school, keep the pupil numbers the same if necessary, but make a small allowance for the impact on the immediate residents.

Everyone else's position: Build the school any which way and sod 'em.

Hey ho!

Anyway.. Glastonbury calls - must dash!

[the-e-dealer]

Excuse me Doesn't NIMBY stand for

"Not In My back yard?"

NOT AS WE HAVE HERE

"Yes fine actually we want a School but can you change it a bit?"

There's nothing wrong with contributing to and joining in with the Planning and Consultation process

isn't that part of what being a good citizen is ALL ABOUT. And thats what the Consulation Process is

there for.

[BigDad]

Whats this NIMBY thing? None of the local residents that I know of oppose having a school on the site - everyone I've talked to WANTS a school to go on the site. Most have kids and want a place locally to send then to .... so why do you think so many are up in arms? Can we put 2 and 2 together and get 4?

The building is going to be out of place and seriously impose on those living around it,

What quality of education will the boys get on such a small site?

Harris advertise for teachers telling them there is very limited parking so its come to school on the bus with all of their books/equipment etc, is that going to tempt them?

And exactly just where will that many teenage boys let off steam (Harris reckon in the library...so we wont go there)

It all sounds like the recipe for a school that your not going to wan to send your kids to

The building is too big - reduce it so it works to educate the number of kids the site can support to get a good education and lets celebrate that, rather than moaning that there is no good school places.

Come on Harris - we want a school so lets have one that works!

[Keef]

Now I think about the numbers it does seen rather a lot. is it going to have 6th form? If not, you're talking 5 year groups with 190 each, which I guess would mean 6 classes of 30 to 32 in each year... To be honest that does seem a bit much. My school had around 90 to 120 per year, and that seemed plenty at the time! 650 seems a better number.

[citizenED]

Small is beautiful. Lots of Educational research points to the benefit of smaller schools - less impersonal, less anonymous. The teachers get to know the kids and vice versa. Alas current educational policy go by the mantra of BIG is beautiful. Agree with Jan t, Big Dad and Keef on this page of the thread. There is a need for a school in the area. But lets get some perspective on the matter.

citizen

[Dulwich_ Park_ Fairy]

citizenED Wrote:

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

> Small is beautiful. Lots of Educational research

> points to the benefit of smaller schools - less

> impersonal, less anonymous. The teachers get to

> know the kids and vice versa. Alas current

> educational policy go by the mantra of BIG is

> beautiful. Agree with Jan t, Big Dad and Keef on

> this page of the thread. There is a need for a

> school in the area. But lets get some perspective

> on the matter.

>

> citizen

So a small school which will only benefit those within a quarter of a mile radius of Piermont Green is the answer? Meanwhile everyone else in East Dulwich will be facing the same secondary school problem.