View Full Version : New Secondary School in Brixton
It came out at the UDP meeting some of us attended that their have been discussions in the Council about siting a school in Somerleyton Rd.So far local residents have not had any say in the matter.
After selling off so much land and buildings over the past few years the Council now is finding it hard to get a decent site.The Secondary Schools Campaign in Lambeth is not happy with the Somerleyton Rd site.Its near a railway line,a narrow strip of land,poor access and not big enough to site decent facilities.Also it wont have older children 16+.
Also the community had already been consulted about using the site for a mixture of housing and workshops.Increasing use of the street(and therefore making it safer) and making it fit in with the recently revamped Moorlands estate and the Guiness Trust flats.These plans have been put on "hold".
The Council plans for a school have gradually been leaking out but their has been no consultation that Ive heard about.
The Secondary Schools Campaign in Lambeth are holding a public meeting on Tuesday 16th September at the Jubilee Primary School Tulse Hill Rd at 7 30pm.
website http://www.sscil.org.uk
"Also the community had already been consulted about using the site for a mixture of housing and workshops."
I think this is the right idea for that site - let's face it the west side of Somerleyton couldn't be worse architecturally, although Moorlands is looking great now.
A School/Academy in Brixton is also a great idea but that is the wrong site.
IntoStella
11-09-2003, 10:31
Originally posted by hatboy
A School/Academy in Brixton is also a great idea but that is the wrong site. Completely. I cannot see how adequate or suitable facilities could be provided for children on such an unsuitably shaped piece of land between a busy railway line and a 'rat run' road.
There would be massive school-run-induced traffic problems and at night, when the place was all locked up, that side of the road would be no better than it is now regarding drug dealers hanging about. It's a stupid idea. Maybe that's why the public haven't been consulted before -- because they're bound to say ''You must be joking".
Mrs Magpie
11-09-2003, 10:50
...and interestingly, the Moorlands Residents Association appear to know nothing about this...I spoke to a long term resident today who is also active on local committees involving youth and she was really surprised. I'm pretty hacked off about it as perfectly good schools in the area are being closed and Dick Sheppard School was sold off to build a luxury gated 'community'....and where will this leave the community projects that are currently using the buildings? (Adults with severe learning difficulties training project, meals-on-wheels, the Council Housing Office etc)
Donna Ferentes
11-09-2003, 11:10
Originally posted by Mrs Magpie
Dick Sheppard School was sold off to build a luxury gated 'community'Christ yes. My landlady was talking to me about that last night. I knew a school had been closed but I hadn't realise that it had been on the site where that ridiculous fortress is.
Mrs M, you might consider firing off afew emails about this. Or letting the Brixton Forum (the council one) know about it. Get motivated on this one and you could have something wonderful on the other side of the road.
:)
The suspicion was that the Council was not consulting people about it.I did not find out from the Council.If even the Moorlands Residents next door have not been consulted their is something fishy going on.Maybe the Council wanted to present it as a fait accompli -this is it or nothing.I will be attending the meeting on Tuesday so I will report back.The Brixton Town Centre Mge have been told.It would be interesting to know how many people in the Council knew about this.
ViolentPanda
12-09-2003, 17:27
There was a bit on today's local news about this where a local mum was making a big fuss about the location, not just the dealers etc, but the traffic.
A councillor (Anthony someone or other) wittered on about it being a classy site, and how by the time it was built the council "didn't intend for the area to still have a drugs problem".
Typical politico-bollocks.
Originally posted by Mrs Magpie
Dick Sheppard School was sold off to build a luxury gated 'community'....
Not all that seriously gated - I regularly cut through there to Brockwell Park on my cycle.
I still agree about the essential, typically Lambeth council, stupidity of pulling down a school, selling off the site and then surprise, surprise, finding that the borough hasn't got enough secondary schools and they're short of sites to build them on.
What gets me about all this is the lack of consultation.The Council has Area Committees and Forums.Also it has pais Arup Consultants to produce to reports on Brixton which its held public meetings about.Despite this in secret the Council was thinking about placing a school on the site.The only reason I can see it has not done this publicly is that to many people would say its not a suitable site.Typical Council consultation-we will consult residents when it suits us(the Council) and not the other way around.
Anna Key
15-09-2003, 12:25
I agree with Gramsci and have seen it a thousand times in workplaces.
Employers love 'consulting' about paperclips or how great the new Chief Executive is but as soon as something serious is planned - redundancies, abolishing a final salary pension scheme, company restructuring, making people re-apply for their own jobs - suddenly 'consultation' ceases.
So predictable and so stupid. If you treat clever people like children or idiots they become angry and cynical. They withdraw from the political process. I would have thought that with turnouts already so low the Council might be a bit sensitive about this.
It also, as Gramsci implies, undermines the Forum and Area Committee structures.
What's the point of having these expensive and time-consuming consultative bodies if the moment something serious happens they're by-passed and undermined?
Originally posted by Mrs Magpie
...and interestingly, the Moorlands Residents Association appear to know nothing about this
Is that so? I thought their chair was being kept fully informed by Mossad.
Originally posted by Mrs Magpie
Dick Sheppard School was sold off to build a luxury gated 'community'
My mum used to teach there. Shouldn't think she'll be happy to hear that, she said it was a good school.
Mrs Magpie
16-09-2003, 02:01
Originally posted by ats
Is that so? I thought their chair was being kept fully informed by Mossad.
LOL, I didn't ask the chair (Knowns as Daggers ie, Dagenham, several stops past Barking) I asked the others!
IntoStella
16-09-2003, 10:43
Originally posted by ats
Is that so? I thought their chair was being kept fully informed by Mossad. Careful, ats, you don't want to become Brixton's own Mordecai Vanunu. ;)
Anyway, I thought the person in question had recently appointed the Easter Bunny as her policy adviser. ;)
IntoStella
16-09-2003, 10:49
Originally posted by ajk
My mum used to teach there. Shouldn't think she'll be happy to hear that, she said it was a good school. I don't know if it was a good school, but it was certainly a good site. Of course, with those nice views of Brockwell Park, it was far too good for kids.
It was only right and proper that it should be put to the much better use of housing rich people in a gated community.
After all, kids don't have any money, do they? ;)
No. Squeeze them into a narrow sliver of land right next to a railway line. They should be fucking grateful we don't send them up chimneys. ;)
ÜberThatcherism in action in Brixton. :mad: :mad:
Not all that seriously gated - I regularly cut through there to Brockwell Park on my cycle.
I still agree about the essential, typically Lambeth council, stupidity of pulling down a school, selling off the site and then surprise, surprise, finding that the borough hasn't got enough secondary schools and they're short of sites to build them on.
It's only really gated for cars, and given the problems on other estates that's not too surprising.
It's not just one secondary school though- a few hundred yards from Dick Sheppard as was is the site of the old Tulse Hill school. It's now two large estates, entrances on Athlone Road and Upper Tulse Hill (map (http://www.multimap.com/map/browse.cgi?X=531000&Y=173500&width=500&height=300&client=public&gride=&gridn=&srec=0&coordsys=gb&addr1=&addr2=&addr3=&pc=SW2&scale=10000&advanced=&multimap.x=278&multimap.y=116)). And don't forget Ashby Mill primary, now gated luxury flats.
Dick Sheppard didn't have much playing area, but had the park out the back. Tulse Hill had a huge playing field, big enough to fit another school into. How much playspace will the new one have?... not much grass I presume, but they can always play chicken on the railway lines...
IntoStella
16-09-2003, 12:01
Originally posted by newbie
Dick Sheppard didn't have much playing area, but had the park out the back. Tulse Hill had a huge playing field, big enough to fit another school into. How much playspace will the new one have?... not much grass I presume, but they can always play chicken on the railway lines... There is nowhere near enough space to have any sort of a sports field. Games like football would be out of the question. I suppose they could make the kids play basketball instead just to reinforce that Americanised inner-city ghetto school ambience. :rolleyes:
Generally a good meeting last night.
The Council have promised to hold another one at the Town Hall to which a wider geographical spread of residents will be invited. They will also provide more basic information about possible sites (which are few).
The reason there has been no consultation so far is that there are no plans so far! Matters are really at a very early stage indeed.
Im not sure I would call it "good".I took notes so Ill post up properly on the weekend.
I did think that the arguments over the unfortunate leaflet that SSCIL put out (Council want school in "Crime spot")led to a lack of discussion of the pros and cons of the site.
It meant that the Lib/Dem Councillor on education was able to split the parents--divide and rule.
I went to the meeting on Tuesday 16th and it was lively.It meant I missed Seeing Tony Benn.
Their was a good turnout at the meeting.I saw several Labour and Lib/dem councillors.
The meeting was organised by the Secondary Schools Campaign in Lambeth so they spoke first:
Their spokesperson said that it was parent pressure that a new school should be built in Brixton.It had been argued that their were falling school rolls so that less schools were needed.This had been proved wrong.
The SSCIL wanted a school that went up to sixth form as many children now had to go outside the borough for that.They wanted it to have good facilities like playing fields and swimming pool(thus a large site was needed).Also they wanted to use the new Government City Academy structures to run basically a parent controlled comprehensive type education(this seems optimistic to me).This would be non selective,non demoninational and Coed.The site they had in mind was the Thames Water site on Brixton hill-this would have to be bought.
The Somerleyton site was to small,poor access,next to a railway line and in a crime hotspot.
The Lib/Dem responce was(Cllr Bottrall spoke most of the time).
Accepted that their was a shortage of secondary places.Support ethos of Nelson Mandela school(he had said his name could be used).He was sorry the Council and SSCil had fallen out on the site..This was premature as no definite decisions had been taken.The DfES had been looking at sites-Somerleyton Rd and the Shakespeare Rd depot.The Council had to supply the site and the government would not supply extra money to buy one.
The Thames water site was therefore not feasible as it had to be bought.Also technically(according to him)a school could not be built on that site.
He also wanted to see central Brixton regenerated and negative publicity would scare private sponsors off.(These new City Academies are public/private type ventures-another issue).People in the wider areas views needed to be taken into account.
It was pointed out that good sites had been sold off.His reply was that this was done by a previous Labour administration and that at the time the Lib/Dems had opposed closures.It was too late now as the best sites had already been sold.
Their were then points from the floor:
Their had been no consultation of residents,local ward Councillors had not been informed and Area Committees had not been kept up to date.
Their were no proposals of how the school was to be sustained-budgets in other schools were being cut.
The administration could go back to the government and ask for support to by the Thames Water site.
Their had been rumours that the School on Somerleyton would be 11 to 16 only.
Their were other proposals for the site-affordable housing/workshops in line with previous consultation reports.These had been forgotten about.
Their was also a number of people from the Moorlands estate(including the chair of the Moorlands residents assoc).They were particularly annoyed at the leaflet the SSCIL put out about the area being a crime hotspot.The said they supported a school on the site.That the SSCIL had given out the wrong message.
The meeting IMO went downhill from there IMO.It seemed to me that the Lib/Dems jumped on this as a way of undermining the arguments of the SSCIL.Implying they were not representative.(seen it before old Council tactic if it wants to push something through).On the other hand I dont think the SSCIL understood how a leaflet going on about how central Brixton is a "crime hotspot" would upset people.
By the end it was agreed to hold another meeting organisd by the Council-with Lib/Dem and Labour coucillors to discuss the school site.
IMO the problems are:
1)Lack of consultation-this leaked out.
2)People are not getting information they need to make decision.How would a school be fitted in on site?What sort of facilties could it have given site constraints?What are alternative plans for the site-are they better idea?
3)What is a "City Academy".How would it be run?Who would run it?It needs private sponsors-how much say would they have in the school?Is it possible for it to be a parent run school given government constraints?
4)What I saw happening at he meeting was the beginning of the worst sort of politiking.Dividing parents etc.I can see the Lib/Dems are desparate to get the government money to set up a City Academy(if u set one up u get government grants).From their point of view they need agreements of where its going to be and they are strapped for cash themselves so think that they have few options.IMO this means democracy suffers.Democracy in the sense of an informed populace taking their own decisions.
Good article on "City Academies" from Red Pepper mag:
http://www.redpepper.org.uk/natarch/tillie.html
Lefty article critical of creeping privatisation of education.
For balance here is another view:
http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/our_services/education/city_academy.htm
Article by City of London-how they are putting money into new school specialising in teaching business studies so people can have careers in the city.
Makes me want to reach for my Althusser and work on ISAs--Ideological State Apparatus(es).Schools being one of them.
Effort to get that link to work-the lefty red pepper one worked no problem:rolleyes:
AlarmedResident
21-09-2003, 20:54
I live on Moorlands Estate and I don't know anything about this school site. What Moorlands residents said I want this to happen? Who are they? They didn't ask me. It would be crazy to put a school there. Have Metropolitan abandoned there plans for this land? I want there scheme. It's housing and workshops.
IntoStella
22-09-2003, 09:16
AlarmedResident -- don't be alarmed! I suggest you PM Mrs Magpie for an update on the situation. Don't worry.
alarmed resident
your point was brought up at the meeting
hope you're less alarmed now
Donna Ferentes
22-09-2003, 10:24
There's a door in the building where I work which carries a notice saying:
THIS DOOR IS ALARMED.
When I go past, I always think:
I'M QUITE CONCERNED MYSELF.
yeah no one think about thieving alarmed resident
Mrs Magpie
22-09-2003, 10:35
I wouldn't be surprised if all the residents are fairly alarmed......the chairperson of their residents committee is certainly extremely alarming. I know her of yore from other committees.
IntoStella
22-09-2003, 10:55
I guess Mossad don't give their agents much training in democratic accountability. ;) ;)
Originally posted by Justin
There's a door in the building where I work which carries a notice saying:
THIS DOOR IS ALARMED.
When I go past, I always think:
I'M QUITE CONCERNED MYSELF.
That's ancient Justin. Zzz.
Mrs Magpie
22-09-2003, 12:07
I had heard it....made me smile anyway...I can do with light relief on this issue wherever I can get it because the whole stupid situation of lack of school provision in Lambeth makes the veins in my temples throb......
AND IT WAS LAMBETH BASTARDING COUNCIL THAT GOT US INTO THIS MESS BY CLOSING & SELLING OFF SCHOOLS :mad:
(sorry for shouting)
IntoStella
22-09-2003, 12:19
You tell 'em, Mrs M. It goes without saying that local residents mustn't suffer any more confusion like the total misrepresentation of Moorlands residents' wishes seen last week.
It's up to the schools campaign, really, to get proper channels of communication going with local residents' and other groups, otherwise they will be widdling in the wind. They must listen to residents and not alienate different parts of the community with scaremongery about crime. LBL must be made to provide a suitable site for a local school with no whining about cost or council tax hikes. They shouldn't have flogged off the family silver in the first place.
[off topic] Speaking of ''this door is alarmed", the one that always gets me is the announcement on the Northern Line: "This station is Oval." No it ain't! :p [/off topic]
Donna Ferentes
22-09-2003, 12:26
I seem to remember Terry Eagleton's Literary Theory opening with a discussion about the possible meanings of the notice Dogs Must Be Carried On The Escalator. Will a cat do?
There were a small number of people from east Brixton at the meeting, all of whom were pretty hacked off by the SSCIL leaflet which was, frankly, scare mongering against the Somerleyton Road site.
These residents included 2 governors from Loughborough Primary a local vicar and an educational psychologist, who was particularly scathing about the SSCIL leaflet.
I didn't think the councillor was trying to 'divide and rule'. Seemed to me he was trying to make SSCIL think about parents and children other than those on Brixton Hill - hence the need for a future meeting to which the whole area will be invited, not just one bit of it.
Mrs Magpie
22-09-2003, 20:37
I'd really like to see a detailed map of Lambeth with what the council owns (although I don't think they actually know what they own) and try and identify a suitable site........failing that, perhaps we can get Blunkett to hand over the Brixton Prison site. it's an appallingly antiquated building that they don't really want any more that should be razed to the ground....not that that will ever happen, but heigh-ho........
Chrysanthemum
22-09-2003, 20:56
I'm getting really tired of the council saying they have no money. I'm tired of "consultations" after all the decisions have already been made. And I'm REALLY tired of threats from the council whenever people dare to disagree. How many times have we been told if we don't shut up we'll get nothing? This is what they're saying about the new school, even though the council isn't paying for it so they don't have the power to take it away.
I wouldn't mind knowing who voted to sell Dick Sheppard school, and who suggested that it should be sold.
IntoStella
23-09-2003, 10:14
Originally posted by Chrysanthemum
I'm getting really tired of the council saying they have no money. I'm tired of "consultations" after all the decisions have already been made. And I'm REALLY tired of threats from the council whenever people dare to disagree. How many times have we been told if we don't shut up we'll get nothing? This is what they're saying about the new school, even though the council isn't paying for it so they don't have the power to take it away.
I wouldn't mind knowing who voted to sell Dick Sheppard school, and who suggested that it should be sold. Extremely well said -- and welcome to the boards, Chrysanthemum. It seems to be getting very horticultural round here lately. :D
Anna Key
23-09-2003, 10:22
Originally posted by Chrysanthemum
I wouldn't mind knowing who voted to sell Dick Sheppard school, and who suggested that it should be sold.
You're not the only one. A cut and paste question from Lambeth's Education Scrutiny Sub-committee by Rob McDonald of the Woodfield Action Committee. Lambeth haven't answered his question yet.
Education Scrutiny Sub Committee 19.03.03 – Public Notice Questions Report
22. Lambeth sold Dick Shepherd, Tulse Hill and South London College, where has the money gone for these pieces of land?
23. Who was responsible for these school closures?
24. Was the money spent directly back into education in Lambeth? If sowill the council provide proof to the fact?
25. When the planning permission was passed for private housing estates on the Dick Shepherd and Tulse Hill Site, what plans did Lambeth set out to teach the new children moving into this accommodation? What procedures are in place to link housing planning in context of population growth and therefore education provision?
26. Does Lambeth feel they are failing their residents/groups? If not why?
27. Would any of the councillors who live in Streatham expect their child/children to travel to Stockwell Park?
28. Why do Lambeth councillors not respond to communications from Lambeth residents/groups?
29. Is Lambeth embarrassed that so many of its children are having to be taught in different boroughs or do they feel this is and easy get out ie: they do not have to worry about doing it?
30. Does the council agree that there is a gentrification process going on in Lambeth which is pushing ordinary people further and further out of central London and this is why so many school sites have been sold to developers for a quick buck?
31. Lambeth at present have a huge debt, is our children’s education paying this debt off?
32. Do Lambeth think its time to make a start on listening rather than dictating to its residents?
33. Does the council agree that it is outrageous that parents and children at interviews at Bishop Thomas Grant are being selected on the basis on their social situation? I.e. Children and parents have been asked, “Do you come from a one parent or a two parent family”, and “Do your parents work”. Parents have raised complaints that their children have been labelled as troublemakers and were threatened “that the school would take them to the police”. The children concerned have no record of trouble. Parents have complained that they have been treated dismissively when they answer the ‘wrong way’ and told they were very unlikely to gain a place at the school. Does the council agree that one fair and equal admission policy for the whole borough would ease this problem? Does the council also concur that no secondary school place should be decided on people’s social or academic level but instead on their needs?
Sorry about the length of this cut and paste but I thought it was a good question (and missed out points 1-21 :p). I'd like to meet this Rob McDonald.
Welcome Chrysanthemum.
I'm intrigued. Can you put up questions 1 - 21 please?
lang rabbie
23-09-2003, 11:15
Originally posted by Anna Key
A cut and paste question from Lambeth's Education Scrutiny Sub-committee by Rob McDonald of the Woodfield Action Committee. Lambeth haven't answered his question yet.
I think that something did get tabled at the meeting of the Education Scrutiny Committee. Unfortunately, and this is far too common, the paper has not found its way onto the Council's website. I think it is down to cock-up rather than conspiracy, although I suspect that leading lights of the administration aren't complaining that these documents are not seeing wide circulation.
Perhaps you should raise this with the Chairs of the three new Scrutiny Committees as well as whoever is now in charge of "Democratic Services support" - the committee clerks team in old fashioned language.
Anna Key
23-09-2003, 14:15
Originally posted by hatboy
I'm intrigued. Can you put up questions 1 - 21 please?
There you go.
Education Scrutiny Sub Committee 19.03.03 – Public Notice Questions Report
Question 6. The Woodfield Centre
Submitted by Rob McDonald on behalf of Woodfield Action Committee
1. What do Lambeth intend to do regarding the growing number of Lambeth Children without ANY school placement? (either
secondary or primary)
2. Why cant Woodfield be given school status and be a permanent small secondary school?
3. Will the council in conjunction with the DfES look into changing the ‘primary school model’ of the Woodfield with the idea creating a small secondary school? And therefore releasing the full student allocation funding.
4. Will the council look into the costing of such a project?
5. Will the council look at the viability of year 9’s at theWoodfield? For example will they cost out what it would take to provide the curriculum needs for year 9’s etc. In other works will the council look at all possibilities before choosing the easy option of annex to Stockwell Park?
6. Will the council look into similar funding to the ‘standards fund’ so the Woodfield can continue as it is?
7. Will the council pledge to find funding to keep the successfulWoodfield centre open long term for years 7 and 8? Will you pressure and if necessary offer funding for Dunraven to allocate for the curriculum needs for year 9 for students from the Streatham area?
8. Why have Lambeth chosen Stockwell Park for annexing theWoodfield? Especially considering the distance the children would have to travel?
9. Stockwell Park currently have no vacancies, the intention is to mix Woodfield year 9 with Stockwell Park. How can this be done if they have no vacancies?
10. If places can be found, why is Lambeth making the Woodfieldan annex to Stockwell Park and not Dunraven which iscloser? Is it true that the real reason for the annexing of the Woodfield is to plug the funding gap at Stockwell Park using the student allocation fund.
11. Does the council think it is wrong to have 7 different admission policies in Lambeth?
12. Does the council agree that the overall provision for secondary education in Lambeth is more than one schools plan?
13. Does the council agree that it would be better from Dunraven to be building more places for local students on the existing siterather than a sixth form college? Would it not be better to use the Woodfueld for a sixth form? Would this not be a better answer to the problem?
14. Dunraven was proven last year by the Sunnyhill Campaign to be completely incapable of handling the admissions properly and fairly. Does the council concur with the campaigners that Dunraven are unable to cope fairly with admissions due to the weight of applicants?
15. Does the council believe that the 40/40/20 selection process at Dunraven is not only unrepresentative for the local community and unfair, but has seriously added to the problems of secondary school places in the Streatham area?
16. Does the council know how many students from outside the
borough are being taught at Dunraven?
17. Does the council agree that Dunraven should be brought back under local government control? If not why not?
18. Does the council agree with local parents that they want Dunraven as a community school and not the continuing slide towards and elitist foundation school?
19. Will the council pledge to campaign for Dunraven to be back under local government control?
20. Even once the new Academy school in Clapham has beenbuilt and a possible new school in Norwood in X years there still will be a lack of places when you take in to account that this year there are 2600 places needed and only 1300 places available. Even with the Woodfield Lambeth still do not have enough secondary school places to teach Lambeth children, so do Lambeth intend paying for the children to be taught at home privately?
21. Lambeth only have control of 2 Comprehensive schools and 1 all girls school in what is an extremely populated borough why?
lang rabbie: I'll chase up the reply. :p
What's the odds on the reply patronising the stuffing out of the excellent Mr McDonald?
Donna Ferentes
23-09-2003, 18:24
Originally posted by Anna Key
Does the council agree that it is outrageous that parents and children at interviews at Bishop Thomas Grant are being selected on the basis on their social situation? I.e. Children and parents have been asked, “Do you come from a one parent or a two parent family”, and “Do your parents work”. Magnificent. Do the school deny or admit that they asked these questions?
I take Mr BCs point about the leaflet but I told SSCIL I thought it would upset people.It has cauased a distraction from the real issues of the site and kind of school.
Warm welcome to new posters-good to see this thread has encouraged new posters on site.
The City Academy idea also concerns me.This(see links on my early posts)is as far as I can see a form of school which will be controlled by the "sponsors" and not the local Council or community.It is all very well to criticise SSCIL but if this kind of school is built local people wont necessarily have much say in it anyway.
I think Gramsci is right to have concerns about the City Academy model. The Clapham experience though, shows that well motivated parents working with the council and Dfes can mitigate the worst effects of the semi-independence given to the sponsors. In that case, the school really will be a community school in respect of its admissions policy, which is the most important bit.
In the Gaurdian on Saturday 19th an article on Bliars new speech about education at the opening of the Business City Academy in Bexley.This is a publicly founded independant school:eek: .It has, presumbly for educational purposes, a "business court with a mini stock exchange and trading floor" :mad: .This means it attracts extra cash from the government:confused: .
Bliar stated their was a programme for 50 city academies in the next four years and the government wanted more private sponsors.
Bliar said that:
" Academies embody all we are seeking to achieve,tackling social exclusion and transforming life prospects for the least advantaged in society" He said they were part of " a fundamental change" in the comprehensive system,ending the "one size fits all " approach.(quotes from Gaurdian)
I dont see how getting private sponsors to set up blatently biased education is ending the one size fits all approach.Its interesting that they are encouraging business type education with extra cash.I thought education was about equiping people with critical tools and self confidence to engage with the wider world.Encouraging this kind of education is completely ideological.Not that I have an argument with being ideological its just that if that is what New Labour want that should be open about it.
This is replacing one size with another not bringing in more "choice" or "diversity"(New Labour buzzwords--see Alan Milburns article in Friday 26th Gaurdian).
I read Alan Milburns article in the Gaurdian(Friday 26th)for the life of me I dont get New Labours Third Way talk:
Here are a few quotes from his article relevant to education:
"Economic prosperity relies on all our people having good education and skills..the worst thing..would be to move towards a monolithic old style take it or leave it service.We should move forwards to a service where their is diversity in supply and choice is extended to those with or without wealth...The whole purpose of democratic socialism is to empower people who have traditionally been with out..Labour parties constitution says "in the hands of the many not the few." "
He also states another New Labour mantra that the the party must not mix up ends and means.This if I get it right is that collective ownership is unnessary.Private enterprise can supply schools and hospitals as long as the ends are the same-haelthy and educated citizens.
What I find difficult with this is I think criticisms of the monolithic welfare state are sometimes correct.The left was critical of this back in the sixties.It was often patronising and prescriptive.The left answer is genuine community ownership and control.
Their is a left libertarien tradition from Syndicalism to more radical forms of education that agrees their should be more "empowerment" and "choice" and "diversity".New Labour frustratlingly use the rhetoric but come up with what I think the Conservatives would dream up.
A telling comment in Milburns article is when he says:
"if we are to avoid the failure of the Clinton Administration to leave a lasting legacy we have to put down roots by entrenching out progressive values as the new centre ground of British politics."
Quite so-and New Labour have modelled themselves on Clintons policies.In the end they will fail.They will be seen in the future to have continued a waterd down version of Thatcherism.
If all this seems going from the point of the thread I dont think so.What gets lost in a lot of local politics and large meetings is a discussion of the underlying issues.A lot of Council work is about keeping LBL afloat the bigger picture often gets lost.Which is why people get fed up with politics-its not about ideals-its about who is a better manager the Lib/Dems or Labour.
Mrs Magpie
29-09-2003, 10:58
Originally posted by Mr BC
In that case, the school really will be a community school in respect of its admissions policy, which is the most important bit.
mmmm, I'm not convinced by this at all...a City Academy is not a community school in any way, shape or form..........
You're right, of course, they're not community schools and that is a significant draw back. My point was that the worst effects can be mitigated, as is the case with the new Clapham school. Although the sponsor is the Church Schools Company, it's a non-denominational co-ed school with an admissions policy more like a community school than the majority of Lambeth's secondary schools. The aim should be to make the admissions policy of the Brixton School the same.
To right they are not community schools.I got the new tabloid Independant today(rather good I thought).It had an article that caught my eye;
"Public schools to sponsor state sector to boost inner cities":mad: :mad:
Public schools ie Eton,Harrow and Dulwich college are thinking of "sponsoring" or even running the new largely government funded City Academies:eek: .According to the Independant article "Graham Able,master of Dulwich College,said that he expected independant schools would go into partnership with City Academies."(Independant is these peoples term for Public Schools)
The City Academy programme is going to be criticised at the Labour Party conferance :)
Apparently the Public Schools are trying to cozy up to Bliars government by offering to support City Academys.Also they are trying to improve their PR as they have been calls to remove their charitable status.Yes u got that right posh private schools are run as "charities".
Dulwich College not as well known as Eton is one of the most expensive in the country as well as being asset rich(land and buildings).
It leaves me speechless that a Labour Government can get into bed with the Public School system.They should abolish them or at least take away their charitable status.
The more I find out about this City Academy idea the less I like it
lang rabbie
30-09-2003, 16:19
There are quite a few people left in Lambeth (OK most of them are now turning 50 and apt to nostalgia when you go for a drink with them) who will tell you that running a state secondary school as though it is a public school can work for all ability ranges - viz Tulse Hill School in the late 50s/early 60s
as recorded on this school site - see home page and links for 50s and 60s tales (http://members.lycos.co.uk/tulsehillschool/)
Anna Key
30-09-2003, 16:24
The private schools (I refuse to call them public schools. They're about as public as a masonic lodge) do get edgy when their charitable status is mentioned. It means, for example, they don't pay rates. Some of them own whole towns. Dulwich College (as Gramsci says) owns vast amounts of property.
I think it was George Orwell who compared the British private schools to a plague of rats and called for their extermination. They are engines of snobbery, passing their foul values from one generation to the next.
IntoStella
30-09-2003, 16:36
Originally posted by Mr BC
I think Gramsci is right to have concerns about the City Academy model. The Clapham experience though, shows that well motivated parents working with the council and Dfes can mitigate the worst effects of the semi-independence given to the sponsors. In that case, the school really will be a community school in respect of its admissions policy, which is the most important bit. Why should it be left to parents to have to fight the iniquities of an intrinsically unfair system? That is totally unacceptable.
You said earlierIn that case, the school really will be a community school in respect of its admissions policy, which is the most important bit.Even if one accepts what you say (which I don't -- at all) you cannot break this issue down into convenient 'bits'. A curate's egg where parents are made responsible for limiting the damage caused by the bad 'bits' -- regardless of their ability to do so, and we are talking about many poor, working class people here, not privileged Cla'hamites -- is just not good enough when we are considering the education of children.
Article by Tony Pearce of the Socialist Educational Association called "Profiting from Education":
http//:www.poptel.org.uk/scgn/articles/0109/page9.htm
He makes two very interesting points:
1)Education is accepted by the Government as just another commidity in the global marketplace.In the ongoing world trade talks their are proposals that governments should open up previously state run services(education,council housing,health etc) to privatisation by foreign firms.This favours the US and other wealthy countries.The argument is to forestall a US takeover of education the UK has to develop its own private educational "service providers".
2)Their has been intense lobbying by the private educational sector of the government
I agree with Infostella on this-I did not fully notice that Mr BC said that "well motivated parents" make a difference.Unfortunately this tends to mean middle class parents pressure.I dont mean this in an abusive sense(their are left wing people who "middle class").Its that the better off have the time and links to make a difference.
I had a look at the Tulse Hill site Lang Rabbie.It was,as were a lot of the early state schools after the war,run as a pale shado of the Public School by teachers who would rather have been Headmasters at Eton.Also it was a state school,whatever its defects,the City Academies are going back to prewar private education.Their used to be lots of (crap)minor private schools for those who could afford them.
It was this as well as the division of Grammer and Secondary Modern that lead in the sixties to the modernisation of Schools as Comprehensives.This was as much a cultural revolution as as educational one.The state schools like Tulse Hill that Lang Rabbie mentions IMO reinforces the existing class structure.
As for me Ive like Orwell(as mentioned by Anna)have a gut hatred of public schools as I went to one(I did get a free place-they let in a few of the hoi polloi as a PR exercise).It taught me how the class system in this country works.I didnt have to read Marx.I remember in my first week their a Senior Teacher gave us new boys a pep talk.He said that we were not their to end up as dustmen but to become the person who told the dustmen what to do.(The old idea that working class are born to dig coal like they are a different genetic race).Never forgot it and never agreed with it even at that young age.I grew up in the docklands of Plymouth and unlike the people I went to school with and was taught by actually knew working class people.Extermination is the only policy for places like Dulwich college and the school I went to.
Also Lang Rabbies link to 50s and 60s Britain brings to mind a playwright(Pinter or maybe Orwell again?)talking about the generation of working class boys who went to these new state schools,typically run on public school lines-houses and prefects- who became slightly lost as they felt themselves neither working class or really middle class by the end of their education.I can identify with that.
I am going on a bit.Lang Rabbies/Annas post brought it all back.Perhaps that is why I get so interested in social ploicy around education.
Just been reading the "Mugged in Lambeth" thread-pages 4 and 5 contain posts on education-teachers/bullying and race/education.Interesting posts but at the back of my mind is now this gradual privatisation of education by this government is going on largely unseen.
For example how will it affect the power of pupils and parents?(As a Mrs Magpie points out on that thread children have little power as it is in our society).Will it make the issues of race and education worse or better?Will teachers lose a lot of rights they now have?
Anna Key
01-10-2003, 13:14
Here are the answers to the excellent Mr MacDonald's questions (quoted above)
Question 6 - from Rob MacDonald, Woodfield Action Committee
Officer response
Question 1:
Lambeth has reviewed its system for monitoring and supporting pupils out of school. Lambeth Council has recently produced and published its School Organisation Plan which provides comprehensive information about population changes. This will allow the Council to more effectively monitor and plan school places. The DfES has recently informed the Council that it will provide additional monies from 01 April 2003 to increase the number of primary and secondary places across the borough.
It is the intention of the Council to propose the building of a secondary school in the south of the borough.
Question 2:
The Woodfield Centre was established as a referral unit and the LEA would have to go through a lengthy legal process to establish a new school. To allow a school to have enough resources to deliver the full National Curriculum the smallest a secondary school should be is 4fe which is a small school with 600 pupils. The Woodfield Centre could only accommodate about 100 pupils.
Question 3:
The DfES is keen to support Lambeth in developing another secondary school and we are awaiting the allocation of money identified in Answer One to allow us to build a new secondary school.
Question 4:
As soon as that allocation has been confirmed the Council will appoint a Project Manager to carry out feasibility studies and begin a formal consultation exercise with all interested parties.
Question 5:
The Council has taken into consideration the viability of providing for Year 9s at the Woodfield Centre. The issue here is that the Woodfield Centre was a primary special school with no specialist rooms. The cost of providing such facilities would be
prohibitive therefore the Council considered alternative arrangements which was to make sure pupils had access to the specialise facilities available at a secondary school. It was not an easy option to decide to annex the Woodfield Centre as Officers and Councillors have received positive feedback about the Centre. However the Council is also clear that it must meet its duty to deliver the National Curriculum.
Question 6:
The Council is unable to replicate the funding provided for 2002 03 from what is known as the LEA block. Funding for 2003.04 to support up to 100 pupils has been calculated using the schools funding formula.
Question 7:
The Council cannot keep the Woodfield Centre open long term for years 7 and 8. It is hoped that the new City Academy in Clapham and the proposed new school south of the borough will ameliorate the need for alternative provision for Year 7 and Year 8 pupils.
Questions 8 and 9:
Stockwell Park was chosen as it is the only school which has the capacity to increase its roll by up to 150 pupils. It is a community schoiol and therefore the LEAS is responsible for admissions.
Question 10:
Dunraven is full and is already above its admission number for some year groups. The LEA is not the admission authority for Dunraven School and could not divert admissions.
Question 11:
It is neither right or wrong but it is challenging to work with seven admission authorities (7). The establishment of an Admission Forum will ensure that the Council is able to co-ordinate admission arrangements for 11+ transfer for all schools in Lambeth.
Question 12:
Lambeth is developing a strategic vision for secondary provision in the authority but this can only be developed by co-operating with our neighbours. The government has appointed a senior official to look at what is called the ‘London Challenge’ which includes looking at secondary education across all London Boroughs.
Question 13:
It is part of Lambeth’s and the government strategy to develop 6th form provision as part of its secondary schools strategy as consultation with parents has shown that many prefer their children to attend schools with a sixth form. The Learning and Skills Council now has responsibility for 16 – 19 provision rather than the Council. The decision to expand the school to include a 6th form wastaken by the Governing body and is being funded by the DfES.
Questions 14 and 15:
Dunraven school has ad admission policy which is published annually. The admission process includes successful passing of an admission test. The school then selects pupils in the 40/40/20 criteria it is often in the position of offering a place to a young person who livers outside of its local area (Streatham).
Question 16:
9.78% of pupils at Dunraven are from outside the borough.
Questions 17 and 18:
The Council is working to develop collaborative working practices between all of its secondary schools. It is a matter for the governing body as to their status. Dunraven is a Lambeth School but as a Foundation School it controls its own admission arrangements. Whatever the view of the Council, only the governing body can change the status of a school or legislation from the government.
Question 19:
Councillors can discuss with the governing body opportunities for collaboration between all its schools. Despite its foundation School status Dunraven is under local government control.
Question 20
The current position is that there are approximately 2500 pupils in Year 6 and 1300 places in Year 7 in Lambeth maintained schools. With the new City Academy and new secondary school in the south there will be an additional 360 places in Year 7. There are surplus places in neighbouring boroughs such as Southwark and Lewisham. Lambeth will not pay for pupils to be taught privately.
Question 21
The profile of Lambeth schools is of 3 community schools with 7 schools, which are either voluntary aided or foundation. VA and foundation schools control their own admissions.
Question 22
Tulse Hill and South London College were not sold by Lambeth council. The Dick Sheppard site generated funds for the council as a whole and over £800,000 was allocated to educational facilities.
Question 23
ILEA was responsible for the closure of Tulse Hill and South London College. Lambeth LEA closed Dick Sheppard school. At the time of its closure its roll had declined to about 130 pupils.
Question 24
The Dick Sheppard funding has been used for Tulse Hill Adventure playground and the Old Library refurbishment in Norwood.
Question 25
At the time when Dick Sheppard closed Lambeth LEA had surplus capacity of over 30% in its secondary schools and also a high proportion of surplus places in primary schools.
Question 26
Lambeth council has been open in recognising its weaknesses.
Question 27
As an officer I am unable to answer for councillors. Officer attitudes to pupil travel are based on ease of bus travel for pupils.
Question 28
Councillors and officers aim to reply to all communications. If you give particular examples I shall investigate them.
Question 29:
The shape of Lambeth and its central position means that travel across borough boundaries is relatively easy. Parental and pupil choice rather than borough boundaries are a determining factor in choice of a school.
Question 30:
There is a gentrification in some parts of Lambeth but it is not uniform and there are still substantial numbers of council houses and street properties and estates owned by the council or housing associations.
Question 31:
The Council has supported schools fully and has passported the amount the government has suggested. This has occurred over a number of years so it is not true that childrens education is ‘ paying off the debt’. In addition the council has bid for and has been successful in gaining additional funding to improve school buildings. Although we recognise that there is still a need for improvement in many buildings.
Question 32:
The council aims to listen to residents and has both town centre forums and new area committees in addition to the scrutiny and executive process in order to do so.
Question 33:
Bishop Thomas Grant is its own admissions authority. We have passed on your concerns and asked them to let us have their response. The council shares your concerns that the difficulties that the current admission process causes to parents and children. We are currently discussing improvements with local secondary schools.
Anna Key
01-10-2003, 15:32
Originally posted by Gramsci
It taught me how the class system in this country works.I didnt have to read Marx.....Extermination is the only policy for places like Dulwich college....
I was taught this in my grammar school, by the headmaster who administered beatings - physical assaults on children - on class grounds.
One time my friend **** ******** and I got up to identical wickedness and were caught by the old sadist.
He straightaway gave **** a sound thrashing (with one of those old fashioned white canes with a walking stick arrangement at one end) while I was simply warned he'd report me to my (middle-class - teachers) parents.
Why was it OK to beat my friend's backside but not mine? Because he lived on a council estate. His father was a barman. So his proletarian buttocks could be freely assaulted, while my middle class derriere remained untouched.
I remember asking my father about this at the time. He confirmed (the old Marxist) that my friend had been assaulted for being working class.
I said: "But that's terrible!"
He said: "This is England."
Sorry to go on but that was my initiation into good old fashioned British class warfare, age 11.
Originally posted by Anna Key
while my middle class derriere remained untouched.
I remember asking my father about this at the time. He confirmed (the old Marxist) that my friend had been assaulted for being working class.
Jeez - middle class guilt cascading down the generations!;)
Anna Key
02-10-2003, 09:24
Originally posted by pooka
Jeez - middle class guilt cascading down the generations!;)
Hey Pooka, you old class warrior you, it's not guilt. I'm proud of my middle-class upbringing. I simply felt sorry for my friend's sadly abused proletarian buttocks. Not a jot of guilt in me old son. It's not my fault some class-ridden sadist had a go at him. :p
Mr Retro
02-10-2003, 09:40
You should have been raised by the brothers/priests/sisters in Ireland.
They used to batter everybody regardless.
"sadly abused proletarian buttocks"
Ever thought of writing homoerotic novellas AK? ;)
Anna Key
02-10-2003, 09:59
Originally posted by hatboy
"sadly abused proletarian buttocks"
Ever thought of writing homoerotic novellas AK? ;)
Working on it mate. :p
You should have been raised by the brothers/priests/sisters in Ireland.
They used to batter everybody regardless.
In a sense I prefer that. If battering is to occur at least let it be equal opportunities battering. It's this dreadful British (particularly English) snobbery I can't stand.
Originally posted by Anna Key
Hey Pooka, you old class warrior you, it's not guilt.
Only teasing, AK;)
More generally, whilst I've no time for private education, "erradicating" one avenue of parental choice (even though it's one restricted in the main to those who can pay) is likely to be a political minefield and strays into dodgy territory in a free society.
But charitable status is another matter. This stems from the fact that the only statute law goiverning charities dates back to Elizabeth I, and includes Education.
The recent review of charity law (http://www.number-10.gov.uk/su/voluntary/report/02.htm) by the Downing Street Performance and Innovation Unit has proposed, amongst other things, that there should be a test of "public benefit" in granting charitable status. The voluntary sector is arguing for an early introduction of Bill to implement their recommendations.
It is likely that various moves by leading public schools, eg in opening facilities to local communities or sharing them with state schools or getting involved in City Academies, is in anticipation of this change, which could hit them heavily.
lang rabbie
02-10-2003, 20:27
My earlier post about Tulse Hill School in the 1950s was trying to provoke a response of what sort of school actually is wanted? SSCIL's main concern seems to be that it should be non-denominational (understandable, given the battles they have had with the Church Schools Company over the Clapham Academy).
From my personal and limited observations, there seems to be a gulf between the views of:
- some white left-of-centre professional middle class parents, who feel guilt pangs about their (predominantly) grammar school upbringings and are therefore averse to any sort of selection/specialisation, and
- some black middle class parents (both of African and Afro-Caribbean heritage), who would like something as "traditionalist" as possible - as seen in the popularity of both denominational schools and some private schools in preference to what Lambeth can offer for this group, particularly parents of boys.
This is not to mention that substantial minority of parents who sadly show little or no interest in their children's education - perhaps assuming that it won't be any better than what was on offer to them twenty years ago.
I don't know the answer, but I do tentatively incline to a view that specialised "magnet" schools could offer greater opportunities than a "bog-standard" comprehensive.
The interesting question is how far do we follow the American "magnet school" model?
Should we even consider that of Chicago where some schools are now military academies, but which do seem to finally be having some success in motivating African-American boys?
[For the avoidance of doubt, I am the product of a comprehensive education (1979-1985), and my view was that the school had far too low expectations of working class children, which were sadly fulfilled by the proportion of ungraded CSEs, whereas the sons and daughters of academics from the local Uni were expected to and did excel, despite the lack of any formal streaming. Coming from petit bourgeouis stock, I was in a somewhat ambiguous position.]
Edited to make argument slightly clearer(?)
Chrysanthemum
03-10-2003, 11:26
I guess I'm wierd, but I just can't get very interested in all the class discussion. My grandfathers were working class (at least they didn't have much education and they did manual labour all their lives), and my Dad got a scholarship to go to uni. I don't remember any crowing over class or any guilt either. I wish people would focus on fairness and decency for everyone, but we seem to be pack animals looking for a pack (and a chance to exclude others from it).
I feel I've seen the Council using this against people who live here. Divide and you won't have to rule; divide and no one will notice that nothing's been conquered.
And I STILL don't know which politicians and council officers signed off the sale of Dick Sheppard.
Southwark wasn't stupid enough to sell the schools if they needed to close some down for a while. So now THEY have Charter School on the old Penn site (a great new bog standard comp that is doing very well taking all those scurrying class warriors from its neighborhood) while we have a block of flats with big ugly gates and a Council telling kids to go perch next to the Eurostar track.
IntoStella
03-10-2003, 13:14
Originally posted by Chrysanthemum
I just can't get very interested in all the class discussion. I'm sure a great many local people would entirely agree with you, 'mum.. (Can I call you 'mum? :D). Class war, yadda yadda yadda. But on the other hand they would definitely not want the specific social and economic problems of an area like central Brixton to be swept under the carpet in a matter as important as the planning of a school. Moorlands is patently not Clapham.
Completely agree with you about divide and rule tactics, but as Gramsci says, it's not a matter of anyone attacking middle class people but of ensuring that the needs of all local people are met, not just those who are relatively wealthy and educated and therefore more likely to speak up and engage with the supposedly democratic structures in place locally. And I STILL don't know which politicians and council officers signed off the sale of Dick Sheppard. The truth will out, 'mum, I'm confident of that. It can't be that hard to find this sort of thing out. Anna Key?
I thought discussing personal experiences would get usual tedious jokes and "middle class guilt" remarks--why I normally refrain from discussing my personal life.
Many communists/anarchists Lenin,Trotsky,Kropotkin,Castro,Che came from "middle class" backgrounds.Was Che suffering from middle class guilt? or did he look at society he was in and made a rational decision that something better was possible?
Its not relevant where u come from.After all u get "working class" tories.
Ill have to continue later as Im at that bastion of "middle class" radicalism ICA;) and they want to set up their sound system.
Anyone fancy joining my crusade for those of us who only use the bar at the ICA? I reckon there are enough of us to be able to stage a coup.. All we'll have to do is get voting rights first.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chrysanthemum
[B]"I guess I'm wierd, but I just can't get very interested in all the class discussion. I wish people would focus on fairness and decency for everyone, but we seem to be pack animals looking for a pack (and a chance to exclude others from it)."
I do not always focus on it as Im a postmodern type Marxist.I dont look for a pack to join-the opposite in actual fact.However the obvious(to me)ideological nature of the proposed City Academies(see my earlier posts) brings up the issue of class in both objective and subjective senses.Blair and New Labour talk in terms of "fairness and decency".Ive come to the conclusion that these terms are to wooly to mean anything now they have appropriated them.Their may also be an age difference-I was in secondary education in the seventies-Im pre Thatcher generation.Thatcher famously made us all middle class-though I think this is an myth.Looking back on it I can remember miners strike,the winter of discontent and the strongly traditional working class area(which also had a large bohemian element) where I grew up.
"I feel I've seen the Council using this against people who live here. Divide and you won't have to rule; divide and no one will notice that nothing's been conquered."
I agree with this completely.
"And I STILL don't know which politicians and council officers signed off the sale of Dick Sheppard.
Southwark wasn't stupid enough to sell the schools if they needed to close some down for a while. So now THEY have Charter School on the old Penn site a great new bog standard comp that is doing very well."
No Councillors or officers will take responsibility for the Dick Sheppard sale in written form.The school was built on part of Brockwell Park which had a covenant on it.It was parent pressure and lobbying that got Southwark kids the kind of school they wanted.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by lang rabbie
[B]My earlier post about Tulse Hill School in the 1950s was trying to provoke a response of what sort of school actually is wanted?
It did provoke a response-I looked at the link-and replied with personal and historical observations.It was the Tulse hill website that stated the first headmaster ran it as a quasi public school etc.Annas post was a personal and political observation of the grammer school system.You started this by looking at it historically.What I believe we were suggesting was that New Labours education policy is reactionary.(Correct me if Im wrong Anna.)
"From my personal and limited observations, there seems to be a gulf between the views of:
- some white left-of-centre professional middle class parents, who feel guilt pangs about their (predominantly) grammar school upbringings and are therefore averse to any sort of selection/specialisation, and
- some black middle class parents (both of African and Afro-Caribbean heritage), who would like something as "traditionalist" as possible - as seen in the popularity of both denominational schools and some private schools in preference to what Lambeth can offer for this group, particularly parents of boys."
Accusing white middle class parents of "guilt pangs" is insulting to those of them who really believe in Comprehensive education.This is in the same league as the "politics of envy" line thrown at those who want decent wages.Despite the cynical times we live in not everyone is motivated by the baser human impulses.Also New Labour say they want to get away from a "one size fits all" education system.Fair enough then they should fund several schools in a neighbourhood--comprehensive,traditionalist,experimental etc.I need to check this but I believe in Denmark or Holland the state will fund a group of parents if they want to do this.
Their are Black and White parents who are "traditionalist".See the importance of the Evangelicals in the Cof E.Also the problems at the Clapham school are caused by it being run by a Church company that is not neccasarily Black.
"I don't know the answer, but I do tentatively incline to a view that specialised "magnet" schools could offer greater opportunities than a "bog-standard" comprehensive.
The interesting question is how far do we follow the American "magnet school" model?
Should we even consider that of Chicago where some schools are now military academies, but which do seem to finally be having some success in motivating African-American boys?"
Not all Comprehensives were "bog standard".The City Academy initiatve is new, how do u know that in a few years time some CAs will be seen as "bog standard".The government is pouring a lot of money into them at the moment but that wont last.
How far "we" follow the US model is one of the points Im raising.Ive seen a programme about the Military Academies.Its scary.They "work" within their own criteria.But what kind of people are they producing-Colin Powell types who are right wing warmongering Republicans perhaps?This just backs up my point that the new CAs are ideological in a conservative way.If I had the money to "sponsor" a CA and said I wanted it to specialise in studies of Marxism,Race and Feminist theory do u really think this government would welcome me with open arms?No Id be shown the door straght away.If the government did agree they would be savaged in the press for supporting a school that "brainwashed" kids(Littlejohn would have a field day).I dont know all the answers either-but I see CAs as creeping privatisation.
" Coming from petit bourgeouis stock, I was in a somewhat ambiguous position.]"
So am I but that helps sometimes-Ive got no vested interest in the dominant order.Remember the "Sans Culottes" in the French Revolution were petit bourgeuis.
Originally posted by Bob
Anyone fancy joining my crusade for those of us who only use the bar at the ICA? I reckon there are enough of us to be able to stage a coup.. All we'll have to do is get voting rights first."
I was their to see an exhibition of Video/Performance work dating from the 70s.I do like the bar but am not their that often as the ICA is a bit off the beaten track for me-neither really in the West End or near S London.
Its worth being a member of the Tate if u can stump up the cash as the members bar in the Tate Modern is amazing with a balcony over the Thames.
Enough of what Nic Cohen in the Observer calls "Revolutionary chic".;)
Mm, can we get over all this class stuff otherwise it'll get as tedious in here as the UK Politics Forum. My experience is that people don't generally fit into neat boxes labelled black, white, middle-class, working-class, etc.
But if you want to make yourselves look like liberal cliches you could carry on talking about class, race, Lambeth schools and.....
....joining the ICA and the Tate Members Bar!
:rolleyes: LOL
{I'm just jealous because I'm not even "relatively wealthy". :( }
I dont think that people fit neatly into boxes either-thats why I would classify myself as a postmodern marxist.However class in the Marxist sense of an conflict between Capital and Labour can be useful when faced with creeping privatisation/corporate control.After all the threads on gentrification have been about how wealthy businssmen/develpers move in to an area and change it completely pushing out the relatively powerless.If thats not in the end about the unequal power of Capital I dont know what is.
I dont understand why discussing this important topic for Brixton makes me "a liberal cliche".
The ICA bar used to be a hangout for the RCP;) The most trendy of the far left in their day.
That's a very fair answer you post-modernist-marxist cliche. :rolleyes:
It's just all this saviours-of-the-prols one minute and see-you-in-the-Tate-Gallery-Bar-darling the next.
I think it's funny.
Originally posted by Anna Key
I remember asking my father about this at the time. He confirmed (the old Marxist) that my friend had been assaulted for being working class.
I said: "But that's terrible!"
He said: "This is England."
Sorry to go on but that was my initiation into good old fashioned British class warfare, age 11. [/B]
Me and Anna might be getting on a bit;) so remember the old pre Thatcher days(before we all became "middle class")but its still their if somewhat hidden.
Althusser(the French Marxist) pointed out that Schools have taken over from the Church as the main way to inculcate the prevailing ideology of society-terming Schools a part of the Ideological State Apparatus.They in his view are a site of class struggle-see Annas example above.Althusser IMO was trying to get away from a more simplistic Marxism that only dealt with class struggle proper ie strikes etc.
This is a more sophisticated view of class.Seeing the myriad little ways the ruling order reproduces itself,
"The mechanisms..are naturally covered up and concealed...an ideology which represents the School as a natural environment purged of ideology..no other ideological State apparatus has the obligatory audience of the totality of the children in the capitalist social formation..five or six days a week."
Of course this does not work on everyone;
"A last portion reaches the summit(of education) either to fall into intellectual semi-employment or...the agents of exploitation."
Quotes from Althussers Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses.
I just cant think who he could be referring to here;)surely not some Brixtonites :)
It is thus totally relevant to look at education policy critically.Its not just reading and writing thats taught at schools but the "hidden curriculam"-the insidious teaching of the "correct" values:
The ideology which suits the role it has to fulfil in class society:
"The role of the exploited(civic,national and a political)The role of the agent of exploitation(abilty to give workers orders) ,the role of agent of repression(enforce obedience)."
Chrysanthemum
05-10-2003, 20:01
Denying people education is one of the best ways to keep them down. Look at the way girls are denied the chance to learn, in places where they're not supposed to have any say.
While I understand that the education system is part of the whole system of society, and that the same groups tend to be in charge of it all, I still think it's important to understand that here in Lambeth, especially in Brixton, children are literally being denied the chance to get a decent education. The expression is that they are "being let down by the system". The fact is they don't have local schools, and lots of them fail to succeed in the distant schools full of strangers that they wind up attending. I think it's hard enough to be a teenager without losing all your friends when you go to secondary school, and I also don't see why kids have to get pitched into such a nasty and unfairly competitive battle for places (when they leave primary school they all know who are the lucky ones, who've been chosen for good schools and who are the unlucky ones).
I think the way a society treats children (and anyone else especially vulnerable) says a lot, and Lambeth has a lot to be ashamed of.
Mrs Magpie
05-10-2003, 22:26
Like IntoStella....can I call you 'mum? :D
I agree in a more general way, but Lambeth is failing our boys even more than it fails our girls (although it is capable of failing our girls too....it's failed one of mine in a spectacular fashion, that is also unlawful....but that's another story). Lambeth is short of 1,400 secondary places per year...of the paltry amount that are available within the borough, most are in Church Scools, with more girls catered for than boys...........I forget the figures, but they are on the www.sscil.org.uk website if you are prepared to fossick....although I'm pretty pissed off with that group for the way they have pissed off Central Brixton residents with stupid 'Crime Hotspot' tabloidism in their leaflets.........
Is Chrysanthemum my mum too? :confused:
Anna Key
07-10-2003, 14:47
Originally posted by Chrysanthemum
And I STILL don't know which politicians and council officers signed off the sale of Dick Sheppard.
It happened in about 1995 so you'd need to dig in dusty files in the Town Hall basement.
However, you'll be pleased to hear that Lambeth's Executive Director for Education advised the NORWOOD AREA COMMITTEE
on Thursday 18th September 2003 that:
... The decision to close the Dick Shepherd School was made in 1995 at a time when it had only 130 pupils. The decision was made without fully appreciating the extent to which demand for secondary school places in the borough would grow. In hindsight, the sale of the site could be considered a mistake as inaccurate demographic projections had been used...
Fortunately the site now provides housing for local people:
Onslow Lodge, Tulse Hill, London SW2
£1000 pcm unfurnished, 2 bedroom flat
A good sized two double bedroom flat within the newly built Brockwell Gate development. The flat is in good decorative order and benefits from a designated parking space. Travel links can be found at Herne Hill and Tulse Hill BR stations.
Source (http://www.findaproperty.co.uk/cgi-bin/agent.pl?agentid=0599&opt=prop&pid=025477)
Donna Ferentes
07-10-2003, 15:19
Originally posted by Gramsci
I dont think that people fit neatly into boxes either-thats why I would classify myself as a postmodern marxist.It's a bit of a straw man, though, isn't it? I don't know anybody who's any sort of serious Marxist who thinks you can fit people neatly into boxes. On the other hand you can't do without them if you're going to explain why different points of view are more prevalent in among some groups of people than others. You can also try and see which of these points of view possess more truth than others, which is what postmodernism tries to avoid, in its evasive and polysyllabic way. As for "postmodern marxist", a more startling oxymoron would be hard to locate outside a conference on compassionate conservatism.
Originally posted by Justin
As for "postmodern marxist", a more startling oxymoron would be hard to locate outside a conference on compassionate conservatism.
Really an interesting debate that needs its own thread.But heres article on Frederic Jameson and postmodern marxism,
http://www.mun.ca/phil/codgito/vol4/v4doc2.html
Chrysanthemum
08-10-2003, 16:15
Thanks very much to Anna for getting something out of the Local Ed Authority people about Dick Sheppard School. Do you need permission to go into the dusty files of 1995? I still want to know who signed off on the deal, because no one ever seems to take responsibility. (They're pretty quick with blame threats and punishment though.) Even that quote was so qualified: it could look like a mistake...!! The population forecasts were accurate!! Did they think all the teenagers were going to disappear? Would anyone say that if a hospital was failing you should close it down & forget about ever providing hospitals again? It could look like a mistake...
Never really been called Mum, but I'm pretty open to offers.
Anna Key
09-10-2003, 17:21
Originally posted by Chrysanthemum
Do you need permission to go into the dusty files of 1995?
Nah. Just ask your local Councillor to arrange it. They'd look such prats not to agree.
Incidentally am I the last person here to discover that Oliver Letwin (soon to replace IDS?) has his London home in Lambeth and said recently he would rather be a beggar than send his children to a state school:
Shadow home secretary Oliver Letwin has claimed he would rather be a beggar than send his children to a state school.
In an outspoken attack on classroom standards in London, Mr Letwin said he would give his "right arm" to pay for a private education for son Jeremy and daughter Laura.
His comments, at a fringe meeting at the Conservative Party conference, came as the Tories launched a fresh drive to reposition themselves as the party of ordinary working families.
The remarks opened up the Eton-educated politician - a director of merchant bank NM Rothschild - to Labour charges that he is out of touch.
Mr Letwin told Tory activists that people regarded him as a "toff" because of his background - and went on to tell how he was trying to get Laura, 10, into "a particular public school in London".
He added: "Miraculously, the middle-class parents with the money end up getting their children into good schools."
Mr Letwin said he "wouldn't mind" using state schools in his Dorset constituency, where his family have a home, but that he wanted to see his children during the week.
He added: "In Lambeth, where I live, I would give my right arm to send them to a fee-paying school. If necessary I would go out on the streets and beg rather than send them to the school next to where I live."
Source (http://tinyurl.com/qb53)
I've emailed him suggesting he might care to contribute to this discussion.
Donna Ferentes
09-10-2003, 22:08
I was going to suggest that they named the new school after him.
Him, or maybe Wackford Squeers.
Mr Retro
09-10-2003, 23:23
Originally posted by Anna Key
Incidentally am I the last person here to discover that Oliver Letwin (soon to replace IDS?)
Please, please, please no.
Watching him over the last few days I've never seen a more supercillious, cock sucking, asshole in my life.
Mrs Magpie
09-10-2003, 23:29
originally posted by Anna Key
I have a nightmare...
Just done my bit for the Tory revival:
Passing the satelite vans by the library I spotted Oliver Letwin sitting in one of them by the open sliding doors going over his notes.
"Excuse me," I said. "Are you here for Oliver Letwin's visit?"
"Yes," he said, looking somewhat hurt.
"Where's he speaking?" I asked. "D'you happen to know?"
"In the cinema I believe," he said and appeared to have sucked on a lemon.
"Thank you very much," I said. "Goodbye."
A technician sniggered.
Mr Retro
09-10-2003, 23:36
Thanks Mrs M for reminding me (and AK too) - I can now retire and dream happy dreams of crunching the chipped rim of my (and this evening oft re-charged) wine glass into his face.
:) Ta Mrs M for cheering up my morning. I've been trying intermittently for a while to get somebody to ask Letwin whether he knows the name of the estate opposite his house - I'd have put a tenner on it that he doesn't.
Originally posted by Mrs Magpie
[Just done my bit for the Tory revival:
Passing the satelite vans by the library I spotted Oliver Letwin sitting in one of them by the open sliding doors going over his notes.
"Excuse me," I said. "Are you here for Oliver Letwin's visit?"
"Yes," he said, looking somewhat hurt.
"Where's he speaking?" I asked. "D'you happen to know?"
"In the cinema I believe," he said and appeared to have sucked on a lemon.
"Thank you very much," I said. "Goodbye."
A technician sniggered. [/B]
Just talking to a colleague at lunch you claims that Letwin made his comments in Blackpool. Or has he been down in Brixton in the last few days?
Mr retro said:
"Watching him over the last few days I've never seen a more supercillious, cock-sucking* asshole in my life."
I know what you mean. He really is a clueless, stuck-up fool isn't he?
But he serves a purpose - he continues to remind us what the Tories were, and are still, really about - Elitism and priviledge.
*Hey Retro, don't diss the fine art of cock-sucking. Ta. :)
The recent review of charity law (http://www.number-10.gov.uk/su/voluntary/report/02.htm) by the Downing Street Performance and Innovation Unit has proposed, amongst other things, that there should be a test of "public benefit" in granting charitable status. The voluntary sector is arguing for an early introduction of Bill to implement their recommendations.
It is likely that various moves by leading public schools, eg in opening facilities to local communities or sharing them with state schools or getting involved in City Academies, is in anticipation of this change, which could hit them heavily. [/B][/QUOTE]
"Public benefit" test is avoiding the issue.Graham Able of Dulwich College is advocating that private schools take part in the City Academy programme and also set up burseries for poor children to go to private schools.This sop should easily satisfy New Labour-safegaurding the private schools charitable status.
Oliver Letwins comments might be amusing but he is a typical product of the public school system.Graham Able has also come in for criticism for remarks hes made about drugs,divorce and Brixton.As someone who works near Brixton and who advocates the the private sector should move into City Academies he when asked about Brixton said he knew little about it.
As for removal of "public" schools leading to a slippery slope to totalitarianism (I assume) this is a common defence of their privileged status in society.People IMO can only exercise genuine choice in society when their basic needs are met.To defend "public" schools on the basis of individual freedom just reinforces inequality.
Ive loked at the LibDem website and cant find anything concrete on their secondary education policies.Do they support City Academy programme,support Comprehensive schools etc?Can one of the Lib Dems post up on this?
As for removal of "public" schools leading to a slippery slope to totalitarianism (I assume) this is a common defence of their privileged status in society.
Not what I said, in fact I said that "charitable status is another matter". If they disappeared overnight, I'd be as well pleased. But I'd wouldn't welcome the sort of society that could "erradicate" them by fiat. Far better to see well heeled parents queing up to get their kids into state schools as Uni's are being obliged to sort out their admission practices.
Here is link to Department of Education and Skills site giving government info on City Academy programme.It of course gives a rosy picture:
http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/academies/
Reading the above DFES site noticed the following points:
1)City Academies will be set up as limited companies with charitable status.
2)Their are 30 proposed in London.
3)They will not be selective but will be allowed 10% in on aptitude to "specialism" of school.
4)They are not bound by National Curriculum.
5)The "sponsors" will make up to 2million of the costs the rest will come from central government.
6)The sponsors will make decisions on "vision and ethos" of school.
7)The sponsors will appoint majority of governors.Their will be one elected parent governor and one person from LEA.
8)The school will be independant from LEA.
Originally posted by pooka
If they disappeared overnight, I'd be as well pleased. But I'd wouldn't welcome the sort of society that could "erradicate" them by fiat.
"fiat" is another term for fear of totalitarianism IMO.Maybe a society run by the right "fiat" would be more egalitarian than the present "free" one.
Originally posted by Gramsci
"fiat" is another term for fear of totalitarianism IMO.Maybe a society run by the right "fiat" would be more egalitarian than the present "free" one.
Has gramsci lent ernesto his password? ;)
Are Fiats working class? I can't remember? :rolleyes: :eek:
Originally posted by pooka
Has gramsci lent ernesto his password? ;)
Actually a serious point.Their is a differnce between "equality" and "equality of oppurtunity".A difference that Social Democracy has always confused particularly in the sphere of education.
ernestolynch
12-10-2003, 22:55
I heard someone mention the words 'city academy'...who's the Tory cunt that supports this stupid idea?
Mrs Magpie
13-10-2003, 07:21
Originally posted by Bob
Just talking to a colleague at lunch you claims that Letwin made his comments in Blackpool. Or has he been down in Brixton in the last few days?
No the incident mentioned by Anna Key was ages ago when he came to Brixton and did his 'I have a dream' waffle....I just quoted it because it does no harm to have a laugh at his expense again..........
Mrs Magpie
13-10-2003, 07:26
... The decision to close the Dick Shepherd School was made in 1995 at a time when it had only 130 pupils. The decision was made without fully appreciating the extent to which demand for secondary school places in the borough would grow. In hindsight, the sale of the site could be considered a mistake as inaccurate demographic projections had been used...
The reason that there were only 130 pupils was because there had been such uncertainty about its future for so long that parents stopped putting it down as a choice, so it became even easier to close it..........
Mr Retro
13-10-2003, 10:24
Originally posted by hatboy
.
*Hey Retro, don't diss the fine art of cock-sucking. Ta. :)
LMAO. He'd be useless at it too, all teeth! I was trying to convey the way he panders to IDS. Instead of "cock-sucking" perhaps "Arse licking" - although thats an art too. :eek: :D
Their was an article in SLP last week about schools.Ive managed to get a letter in SLP this Friday(privatising push for education).Their are a page of letters(p31) about schools and Letwin.
I know Letwin is a typical public school Tory but are his attitudes that different from New Labour?His proposed island for asylum seekers for example.The home secretary was proposing to the EU that holding camps for refugees be put in countries on the edge of Europe.This was chucked out by the EU for the moment.Is this so different from Letwins attitudes?They are all pandering to Hate Mail readers.
The dire state of the Tory party is allowing Blair to plough on with "modernisation".IDS and Letwin are a distraction.What are the Tories supposed to do when New Labour policies are on the centre right?
Donna Ferentes
18-10-2003, 18:41
Also noteworthy was the letter from the manager of the Fridge saying how they were trying to attract "a respectable middle-class audience".
A bit off the subject but the quote from the Fridge managers letter is "We at the Fridge work hard to encourage good respectable middle class people to our venues."
Mrs Magpie
19-10-2003, 14:41
It wasn't the manager of the Fridge I don't think, it was the Fridge Bar which is not the same thing..........
Not quite anyway.
Surely the correct quote is "We at the Fridge work hard to encourage any old Tom, Dick or Harriet with some money to spend to our venues."
Which is fair enough I guess, apart from the £4 a go red-stripes.
:)
Originally posted by ernestolynch
I heard someone mention the words 'city academy'...who's the Tory cunt that supports this stupid idea?
Always straight to the point Ernesto;) .I believe its Tory Bliar.:mad:
Their is now a date for a public meeting on an City Academy school in Brixton-and the possible Somerleyton Rd site.
Its on Thursday 20th November at 7pm in the Assembly Hall(thats part of the Town Hall.The entrance to the Hall is via the Acre Lane entrance I believe).
A representative of the DfES will attend and I assume Councillors etc.As I said its a public meeting so all can attend to air their views.
Im not sure how it will be run.Hopefully people will be able to speak up.
ernestolynch
25-10-2003, 16:34
Is the Carpet King of Peckham going to get this 'city academy' (privatised school) then?
Originally posted by ernestolynch
Is the Carpet King of Peckham going to get this 'city academy' (privatised school) then?
Whose the Carpet King?
Lord Harris of Peckham, chairman of Carpetright. He sponsored a school in Peckham or something.
:)
As there is a meeting coming up some more info on schools.Im not in SSCIL but here is what I think their position is with quotes from their reports.If Im wrong or their is more to add can someone post up.Any comments would be welcome.
The SSCIL are the only group independant of the Council that campaign for more school places.They have argued for the children of Clapham,Brixton and Herne Hill.They are run by the voluntary efforts of concerned parents alone.
As LBL has sold several school sites it will now have to either buy or use the remaining sites in central Brixton.The two sites put forward by the Council are the Shakespeare Rd depot and Somerleyton Rd.Both sites have problems-Somerleyton Rd is small,next to a railway line and poor access.The Shakespeare Rd depot-LBL would have to lease the site and move the depot.
The site that SSCIL have proposed is the Thames Water site on Brixton hill.This site would have to acquired by the Council.The Council claim that it is technically not feasible to use it.THE SSCIL say that this is incorrect.The main problem is funding to buy the site.THe City Academies program is Government funded but the local Council have to supply the site.SSCIL argue that Central or local government should find the funds to buy a suitable site large enough for a school with good facilities.This in actuality would be a small proportion of the overall cost of a new build school.The problem in Lambeth is high land prices and the fact the Council has sold good sites to developers.
SSCIL argue that to fulfill the needs of all children in central Lambeth 2 or 3 schools may be needed.The City Academies Unit agreed that 2 schools may be needed.
To quote from a SSCIL report they want;
" A non selective,non denominational,co educational secondary school,with a sixth form on the same site,that offers the same high quality learning and community ethos that can now bw found in many of Lambeths primary schools."
Also SSCIL argue that Lambeth should;
" immediately seek alternative sites in Brixton that are safe and big enough to accomodate the type of school local parents want."
and;
" Lambeth Council should create a working group to determine how much it would cost to develop the Thames Water site for a Brixton secondary school.This at a minimum should include the DfES,Lambeth,Thames Water,English Heritage and SSCIL."
Also,
For 3 years SSCIL has highlighted the issue of 600 children leaving primary schools in the centre,with no local secondary schools.The parents in SSCIL want every child to have access to a good local secondary school."
Donna Ferentes
26-10-2003, 18:25
What is it with carpets and kings? There used to be a Carpet King in Oxford as well - one Tony Rosser, who for several years was chairman of the football club as well. Anyway he was toppled from his throne because some eyars later I found myself speaking to him on the phone several times in connection with his Incom Support application, conversations which included, as I recall, a number of references to people "coming over here in banana boats".
But back to education. Can anybody explain to me the sixth form issue? I attended a sixth form that was simply the next year (or rather, two years) up in the school I went to in Hertfordshire, an arrangement which I believe is popular with parents. On the other hand, I understand that educationalists tend to believe that separate sixth forms, i.e. sixth form colleges drawing their intake from different secondary schools, are educationally superior. Is that right?
Chrysanthemum
26-10-2003, 19:00
I've had the sixth form thing explained to me in words of one syllable (I'm sure he MEANT to be polite). What stuck with me was the need to make it simple for most kids to stay in school longer, and that it's easier to recruit teachers to schools with sixth forms. Also, with everyone screaming about traffic, it doesn't make sense to make kids travel. Parents seem to prefer integrated sixth forms too, maybe for the reasons already listed and maybe because they have more confidence in the academic standards of schools with sixth forms.
Ernesto and Hatboy are correct.Lord Harris of Peckham sponsored a Secondary school in Croydon.He put in 1.25million.
Surprise surprise its called "Harris City Technology College"
CTCs were established by the Education Reform Act of 1988-so they predate the City Academy project.They provide secondary education with a high amount of "technology" type vocational courses-dont want kids getting interested in politics do we;) .Employers have a direct input into the schools-donating equipment and a role on the governing body.Between 1988 and 1993 fourteen were set up.According to the DfES website the City Academy programme will build on the "success" of the CTCs.Some CTCs may be granted Academy status.
If I get my dates right this means that the City Academy programme was influenced by the Conservative CTCs started in 1988.I dont know why they stopped in 1993.Good to see New Labour thinking outside the box and picking up on Tory educational policy:rolleyes: .
Donna Ferentes
28-10-2003, 15:33
What's this (http://tinyurl.com/spcs) all about?
Well, presuming it is now impossible for Lambeth to re-aquire the Effra Parade site, Lambeth are now insisting that a housing development is in scale with existing houses and provides more "affordable" housing than originally proposed by Goldcrest Homes.
The UDP states that building here should infill the terraced style of the street as it was before the school was built. The street was badly bombed in WW2.
Er, perhaps a City Academy could go here? I mean if Lambeth hadn't sold the site. :eek:
I saw that article in the SLP.I wondered what it meant.Has the site been sold?Or are the developers only willing to buy it out right if they have the planning permission they want?Its not clear from the article.
I thought I would bump this thread up as the meeting re the new school in Brixton is coming up this Thursday.I received more info about it on Saturday.
The meeting is on Thursday 20th Nov at the Assembly Rooms,Brixton Town Hall at 7pm.
The LEA and DfES will be present and give presentations on the City Academy programme and secondary school provision in Lambeth.
Brixton Area Forum will "facilitate" the meeting and the second part of the meeting will allow people a chance to present their views.
"light refreshments will be provided."
This is a public meeting so all are welcome.
Brixton Hatter
18-11-2003, 13:00
If you go here (http://www.dfes.gov.uk/pdfs/Lambeth.pdf) you can download the Government's "Vision for Lambeth Secondary Schools". I haven't read it yet - but I will!
Thanks for posting up that link Brixton Hatter.Ive read it.Its a document agreed by the present LibDem/Tory administration in line with Government policy.
What did surprise me was the word Comprehensive was not mentioned once.The aim is to make each school in Lambeth a "specialist" school in the same way that the new City Academies are going to be set up.
The word "community" was mentioned but not how they would be involved in local schools.The new City Academies are supported in this document-I take it that the LibDems therefore have no problem with them.The future role of the LEA is not discussed in this document-surprisingly-as the City Academies will be outside its control.See previous posts for reservations on City Academies.
In short their was a lot of the usual platitudes in this document but nothing about the problems or choices involved in this educational "modernisation".IMO it read more as a "mission statement" so beloved by business or Councils-not a discussion document.Perhaps this is not what the local community want.It seems to me this "modernisation" of education is going to go ahead anyway whatever people think.I wish the LibDems would put forward a clear view of their educatiuonal policy.To me it seems no different from New Labour except that they might argue they run the educational service in LBL more efficently.
The latest info I have on the meeting on Thursday is that the "focus of the meeting should be informing parents from all parts of Brixton about... a new secondary school and eliciting their views on (a)whether they want such a school and (b) what sort of school they would like it to be.".(Ive heard this phrase before)."The intention now is not to discuss specific sites.but rather to encourage thinking in broader terms about the the pros or cons of different locations."
Ill quote some to the point observations from SSCIL re this:
"The Powers that be feel the need to drag us out on a dark winter evening to say that children need schools...in spite of SSCILs three years of campaigning for places for the 600 Y6 children in central Lambeth who have had no secondary schools..Lambeth needs to hear again that these children need schools."
"In spite of the need to be specific about sites and dispell confusion about them,Lambeth wants a meeting to "encourage thinking in broader terms about the pros and cons of different locations"."
SSCIL however urge everyone to attend this meeting on Thursday to make their views known.
I went to the meeting last night in the Assembly Rooms. Not a lot happened but some interesting information shared.
If the school is to be on the Thames Water site, the government would have to buy it. They have opened, or will shortly be opening, 37 City Academies and have never yet paid for a site. There was much talk from the chap from the Dept. for Education about "you'll be surprised where we've found sites" etc. The implication is, I think, they won't buy a site if there is any remotely good site they can have for free from the council.
The civil servant also emphasised that City Academies were meant to be situated in what he called the most "challenging" areas. Again, I assume that meant they preferred the Somerleyton Road site to the Thames Water one.
The ball is well and truly in the govt's court anyway, as they have apparently commissioned a report on the viability of the Thames site.
Other than these smoke signals, there was a useful presentation showing the shocking number of 11 year olds who have to go out of borough for a secondary school place.
Surprisingly, no one argued against the school being a City Academy.
So far as the SCIL line on 'being dragged out on a damp winter's night' is concerned. I was at the Jubilee meeting and remember that is was them who demanded the meeting in the Assembly Rooms!
Back on the boards after a week of being morose so sorry or i I would have posted this up before.
I went to the meeting as well and took notes so heres my view of what it wasa like.
The first thing I would like to say is that this meeting was set up to not allow people to voice their opinions.That is why their was no discussion of a City Academy etc.Out of 2 and a half hour meeting 2 hours were taken up with speakers from the Council and DfES,20 mins on "activites".Only ten minutes were allowed to ask questions and that only after intervention from the floor.
The Council also said that this meeting was not about specifics-the type of school or site.It was "info sharing and pre consultation" according to Cllr Bottrell.In fact a questionaire circulated at the meeting asked what type of school people would like--ieLEA Comprehensive or City Academy.Therefore I take the Councils offical position to still be that no final decision has been made.
The SSCIL did not demand a meeting in the Assembly rooms.This was the Councils idea as they in their view wanted a more "representative" cross section of local residents.If they did not get that its the Councils fault for not publicising the meeting properly.
What annoyed me most was the lack of debate.This meeting was held under the aegis of the Brixton Neighbourhood Forum.This Forum was set up to let people have their say-supposedly.Instead if was a carefully manged meeting.Those present were told (and the LibDems /Labour seemed to agree on this) to show "positive enthusiasm","not be confrontational","come together,work together"(with the Council).As someone said to me at the meeting this means doing what the Council wants.
The meeting was a classic case of typical "New Labour" type consultation.If you did not show "positive enthusiasm" then you are against something good for the area.
If the only option the Council has is a City Academy it should say so and stop "consulting" people about it as they are going to get it whether they like it or not.
As for me all I want is a chance to have my say and a proper debate-Im not into being disruptive for the sake of it.At the end of the meeting I did ask whether their would be another one where people would be able to ask questions-I dont know whether this will happen.
Details of the meeting itself: Their were four main speakers;
1)LEA executive director.
The LEA admitted that they cocked up the need for secondary school places.The LEA thought that the population of Lambeth was going down.This was the rational behind school closures and sell off of sites to developers in the teeth of local opposition(in the time of the previous Labour administration).Therefore their is now a shortage of places.Lambeth exports 58% of 11 to 18 year olds to other boroughs for education.
2)DfES
"Sir" Bruce Liddington of the DfES came along.I must say Ive a grudging repect for thiese government mandarins.They know their stuff even if I disagree with them.He spent most of his speech cleverly dealing with any possible criticisms of City Academies(CAs).
He said that CAs were influenced by the Conservative Education policy on City Technology Colleges(Ive posted up about this previously).I dont think thats something any Labour member would emphasis.
He said that their were differences:
a)They will work in partnership with the LEA
b)they will be "Comprehensive"(he did not explain this further).
c)10% intake will be on "aptitude".(IMO no different from "selection")
d)The CAs will not be allowed unnecessary exclusion and will have to work with the LEA on this.
e)The admisssions arrangement will mean the CA will have to take its fair share of local kids and specail needs.
The CAs are set up to be put in "challenging areas" and the government expects a "transformation of education" and for them to be "asprational".
He was the best speaker.However working in "partnership" with the LEA does not mean LEA controlled.Looking at the DfES website the board