Objection by LEAP
Objection to the Ladywell school proposal
To: Mr Tony Freeman, Head of Partnership and Investment, Lewisham Council
Objection by Local Education Action by Parents to proposal for a new school on the site of Ladywell Leisure Centre.
A broken promise
The Council promised parents a new school in the north of the borough. Instead it is proposing a new school in the centre of the borough, to which children in the north will not gain access.
Lack of parental support for a school in central Lewisham
The promise of a new school in the north was made in response to an unprecedented campaign by parents in the north who want to improve access to good local secondary school places for their children. This campaign was born and sustained because parents recognised a real need for a new school. Evidence from studies of what makes for successful schools shows that where schools are founded with strong parental support they have a higher chance of success.
There has been no parents' campaign in central and east Lewisham. Where is the groundswell of support for a school in central Lewisham? Where are the active committed parents prepared to put hours of work into helping make the new school a success? If there were a strong parental desire for a new school there one would have expected some demonstration of this. There is a great risk that a new school in Ladywell would lack parental support and be less successful than were it to be sited where parents have been campaigning for a school.
The Council has disregarded the strong representations made by parents in Planning Area 1 (Evelyn, New Cross, Telegraph Hill and Brockley) as well as the results of all their consultations on secondary school provision. Yet parental satisfaction, real "choice" and participation are key planks of Government policy. While the Government talks of user-ledpublic services, the LEA continues to make decisions based on a provider perspective. The proposed siting of the new school is intended to serve the needs of the LEA more than those of children. The LEA is more concerned about improving its league table results by retaining the band 1A's who go to Greenwich than the real needs of children in the borough.
The need for a school in Area 1
While there have been improvements in access for children to local schools in Area 1 over the last few years, parents feel there are still too few places in good local schools for their children. Many children do not get a satisfactory secondary school place. This year only 55% got their first preference school and about 20% got one of their bottom three options or none.
The LEA suggests it is a satisfactory outcome if a child gets one of their 6 options. That is not so. Many were very unhappy to receive an offer for a lower ranked preference school. Raw statistics are inadequate to judge parental satisfaction, which is why the Council should actually ask parents what they want. There is still a strong demand for a new school in Area 1.
The LEA justified a school in the centre of Lewisham by arguing there was greater need for a new school in Planning Area 2 (Blackheath, Lee Green, Ladywell, Lewisham Central, Rushey Green). It asserted that the Ladywell site would be equally accessible to children from Area 1 and Area 2. In fact a 4-form entry school with an intake of 120 a year is likely to have quite a small catchment area. It will not be accessible to children from Area 1 especially the most northern part of that area, where past Council reports have found that access to secondary
Objection to the Ladywell school proposal April 2005
schools is most restricted. The site is too small to expand beyond the proposed 4 form entryeven though Government policy is that schools should be able to expand if they are popular.
No evidence for greater need for new school in Area 2
The arguments for siting a new school in central Lewisham in Area 2 are in the November 2002 Report to Mayor and Cabinet of Strategic Review of Secondary School Places. The LEA claimed (paragraph 8.3) that fewer children obtained their "first choice" school in area 2 than in area 1. We argued then that the LEA was using misleading data as it was only looking at the single Lewisham statutory preference. It did not take account of first preferences for out of borough schools. Now with the results of the first Pan London co-ordinated admissions system we see that Area 2 has greater success at getting their schools of preference than Area 1. It's just that more parents in Area 2 are choosing out of borough schools, especially in Greenwich.
The LEA also said that if Lewisham schools became more popular then the increased "pressure" for places would be greatest in Area 2. The LEA has offered no evidence that siting a school in Ladywell will attract pupils who might otherwise go to Greenwich. Parents don't care about borough boundaries. If it's a good school within a reasonable distance then it doesn't matter if it's in another borough. There are many popular Greenwich schools close to the border with Lewisham to which children in Area 2 have good access and with which there is a long established link. Remember it was east Lewisham parents that fought for the right to continue sending their children to Greenwich and established the famous "Greenwich ruling."
A new school in Ladywell is more likely to destabilise Crofton by attracting children who might otherwise have considered Crofton.
Deliverability within timescale
The LEA said the Ladywell site was good because it would provide a new school by 2005, sooner than all other options. Other potential sites were discounted as they "would not be ready in time." Now that the temporary site has fallen through any such advantage has been lost. A new school is a major investment in our children's' futures. It would be tragic to rush this decision and get it wrong. There is time to look for other sites and make a good decision.
Race equality
The Race Relations Amendment Act places an obligation on authorities to consider the impact on race equality of all its decisions. The siting of a new school should include an assessment of how it will impact on race equality and help reverse patterns of racial educational disadvantage. The LEA has not published any race or social impact assessment to support the decision on where to site a new school.
This year's secondary transfer statistics shows that black children are much less likely than white children to obtain their school of first choice. The gap is wide: 16.5% across the borough with the widest gap in Area 1 (17.1%). This is compounded by the fact that Area 1 has the highest number of black children, so in absolute terms it is very significant. The gap is even wider for band 1A black children (area 1 20%; area 2 14%; area 3 16%; area 4 17%). This is in spite of the fact that parents of black children use significantly more of their 6 preferences than parents of white children. (LEA report 3 October 2005, Outcome of Secondary Transfer Process, Tables 10A and 6). Thus significantly more black children, especially those in band 1A, get a lower preference school. This pattern was noted in previous years, yet the LEA has not investigated, explained or produced a plan to tackle this phenomenon.
Objection to the Ladywell school proposal April 2005
The lower preference schools are generally the less popular schools. These schools perform less well in league tables and have less balanced intakes. This perpetuates existing patterns of disadvantage. Recently published research by London South Bank University (March 2005) showed that minority ethnic children have less access to good secondary schools. They "lose out" in the competition for secondary school places and are more likely to go to a secondary school of a lower performance ranking than their primary school.
Given that the most powerful determinant of success in getting into a school is distance from the school (as most schools use distance as their main oversubscription criterion), then surely it is worth considering that one explanation for this might be geographical? Is it not possible that where more black children live there is less access to popular schools due to distance?
The LEA has avoided looking at the "micro-geography" of this issue, although it is clearly important. The location of schools could systematically disadvantage children in certain areas. If those areas have high concentrations of children from black and minority ethnic groups (BME) or from deprived communities, this could compound any educational disadvantage and increase inequalities. The LEA should "track" each child at secondary transfer to see what schools they are applying to and where they are accepted, and relate that to where they live.
Area 1 is the most ethnically diverse area in the borough. 64% of children age 0-14 in Area 1 are in a BME group. Of the five wards with the highest percentage of BME populations, four are in area 1. (Evelyn highest; New Cross second highest, Telegraph Hill fourth highest; Brockley fifth highest).
This issue is so important that it should be one of the main considerations in the decision about where a new school should be sited. We believe that an analysis of the geographical issues would indicate that siting a new school in Area 1 would have the greatest impact on widening access for black children to good quality secondary education.
Population growth in area 1
The Council is not planning adequately for educational provision for the phenomenal population growth predicted for Area 1. (Evelyn, New Cross, Brockley, and Telegraph Hill) The GLA predicts that the population of Lewisham will grow by 6.4% over 10 years. The Area 1 population will grow by 25% from 58,000 to 72,377. Thus almost all the projected population growth in Lewisham will be in Area 1. The Evelyn population, including the Convoy's component, will increase by 73%, from 14,512 to 25,000. Over a third of the Convoys development will be social housing which will have a higher child density. (Data from Lewisham PCT, the GLA and SE London Strategic Health Authority). The LEA school organisation plan predicts a child yield from new developments in the north of about 150 in each year group. This would require a 5-form entry school, yet the LEA is only planning for a 2-form expansion to Deptford Green to meet this need.
Evelyn ward is situated in the Thames Gateway Development Area for which Government development funding is available. Section 106 funding for Convoy's development is also available. Lewisham Primary Care Trust is already making plans for increased health service provision for Area 1. It recognises the time lag between intention and delivery. The Council too should start planning now. It first promised a new school in 2001 and we will be lucky if one opens by 2008! So the 10 years over which the Area 1 population is due to grow is not very long in planning terms. If the Council waits until the need is pressing then it will be too late, because all the possible sites will have gone and the Council will have missed its chance to get development funding from central Government and developers.
Louise Irvine, Chair, Local Education Action by Parents October 2005>
