Jump to content

Recommended Posts

All this is quite complicated, and I'm not an expert, but the Charter ED admission policy may be problematic for the sixth form.


I think Charter ED is a free school, but it appears these must comply with the Admission Code. It would be necessary to check the funding agreements. Plus it also depends whether the school is a Year 7 to Year 13 school rather than having a stand alone sixth form school with a separate sixth form.


If it is a through school then my understanding is that all pupils of the school have an AUTOMATIC right to transfer from Year 11 to Year 12. They cannot be removed from the school roll at Year 11. UNLESS the school have set academic criteria, which must be the same for internal and external candidates.


So the claim at para 12 that entry to the Sixth form is a separate and distinct point of entry is potentially misleading to internal candidates. See para 2.6 of the Admissions Code - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/389388/School_Admissions_Code_2014_-_19_Dec.pdf


If entry is automatic to internal candidates, providing the grades are met, I'm not sure how Charter ED can lawfully limit their internal transfers to a total of 90 as they appear to be doing.


It does not appear to make sense. I would have thought you would need to say the admission number for the sixth form is 30, but they may have to go over capacity of 120 if more existing pupils transfer than expected. The external candidate PAN should be set low enough to limit the risk of this, but they can go over PAN without consultation.


If oversubscribed then existing pupils internally transferring to the sixth form are first, which could theoretically mean there were no external places available.


It gets more complicated when course availability is taken into account, because the admission code is silent on this factor. The code relates to admission to the sixth form not the courses.


If a student is an internal candidate who has met the sixth form academic entry requirements and the Charter school do not let that student into the sixth form then it is possibly unlawful, because the requirement to legally remove the student from the school roll has not been met. As a general point a school is not allowed to cherry pick external applicants over internal transfers according to the admissions code.


The above is my understanding of the admissions position, which, of course, could be wrong!

Yes, it is complicated. My reading of the document is that:


1. Not sure about the distinction between a through school or not but admissions code states 'Admission to Year 12 at The Charter School East Dulwich Sixth Form is a separate and distinct point of entry.'


2. In terms of offering 90 places for internal applicants from the existing student body and 30 to external, I also see that the over-subscription policy priorities existing students. So from this, I would assume that if the sixth form was oversubscribed with perhaps 96 internal applicants wanting a place with 30 external applicants, those 6 internal candidates would have priority over the external applicants. I suppose the rationale to this is currently, the first group of students from the school who will go into the sixth form - the current year 10 - are only 120. It is likely that not every student at the existing will want to go on to the sixth form - a good percentage might want to go to an FE college or another sixth form, depending on their course choice. But I agree that it's an awkward way to do it - surely it could just be there are 120 places, priority goes to existing students who meet the minimum admission requirements and then any remaining places are allocated as per the admissions policy


3.But it doesn't appear the admissions policy would allow for cherry picking even with the 90/30 split The main priority for selection appears to be on distance, as long as candidates meet minimum grade requirements. It's my understanding that the grade requirements will mirror Charter North grade requirements to sixth form which are fairly reasonable - e.g At least five 9 to 4 (A* to C) grades at GCSE and at least grade 4 in GCSE English Language and Mathematics. All subjects will also have their own requirements but looking at the Charter ND prospects these are also fairly reasonable e.g. to study English Literature at A Level you need a 6 in GCSE.

As a point of clarification I am not suggesting Charter ED intend to "cherry pick". The point was simply that no school, including Charter ED, are allowed to cherry pick.


Dealing with the substantive point.


Para 12 of the Charter ED is unclear, and potentially misleading, in my opinion. It appears to imply that legally internal candidates must apply to join the sixth form by a deadline. Technically this is not strictly true. Internal candidates have the right of transfer subject to passing the academic criteria. The admissions code confirms this to be the case. An internal candidate may only be removed from the school roll if they fail to meet the academic criteria (also see edit below), not because they missed a "deadline", or more than 90 internal candidates had passed the academic criteria.


Internal candidates should cooperate with internal school procedures, but they should be aware of their right of transfer, subject to passing academic criteria.


The admissions code states:


Overall principles behind setting arrangements


14. In drawing up their admission arrangements, admission authorities must ensure that the practices and the criteria used to decide the allocation of school places are fair, clear and objective. Parents should be able to look at a set of arrangements and understand easily how places for that school will be allocated.


---


The question is whether paragraph 12 of the Charter ED admissions arrangement meets that objective as it is currently written.


Only an adjudicator could ultimately determine whether the admissions arrangements comply. I'm just expressing an opinion.


Edit 1:


The issue of whether preference may be given to Year 11 Charter North Dulwich is another point. Paragraph 1.8 of the Admissions code may be relevant. The code also gives further information on oversubscription criteria for interested parties.


For instance does 1.9(b) apply?


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


Edit 2


Legislative criteria for deletion from admission register in case of non-progression to sixth form:


Regulation 8(1)(k)

- that the pupil will cease to be of compulsory school age before the school next meets and?


(i) the relevant person has indicated that the pupil will cease to attend the school; or


(ii) the pupil does not meet the academic entry requirements for admission to the school?s sixth form.


?relevant person? means ?

(a)

in relation to a pupil under the age of 18, a parent of the pupil;

(b)

in relation to a pupil who has attained that age, the pupil.



I.e. it is the pupil/parent who chooses not to progress, or the pupil fails to meet academic criteria. In these two cases deletion from the admission register is lawful.

Interesting. To share your views with the school on this latest consultation, the email address is mailto:[email protected]


I hadn?t looked at requirements for sixth form entry, but absolutely appalled that it?s down to siblings, being a Charter North pupil or the daughter/son of a teacher. Scary stuff.

Monkey Wrote:

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

> Interesting. To share your views with the school

> on this latest consultation, the email address is

> mailto:[email protected]

>

> I hadn?t looked at requirements for sixth form

> entry, but absolutely appalled that it?s down to

> siblings, being a Charter North pupil or the

> daughter/son of a teacher. Scary stuff.


I've just moved out of the area so I would need to check on the consultation arrangements, but I am unlikely to be in a good position to respond to a consultation.


My opinion is:


1. Sibling oversubscription policy appears to meet the requirements of the Admission Code, so it is unlikely to change unless there was a substantial body of parents who objected to it.


2. Staff oversubscription policy appears to meet the requirements of the Admission Code.


3, North Dulwich priority may not meet the mandatory requirements of the Admission Code, and an objection could be raised. Obviously Charter ED may be entitled to include this oversubscription criteria, but it appears to breach 1.9(b) of the Admission Code - "they must not take into account any previous schools attended, unless it is a named feeder school; ". Charter North Dulwich is not a feeder school, under my understanding of what a feeder school is. Also Charter East Dulwich state at para. 19 of their admission policy that "Only siblings at The Charter School East Dulwich will be taken into account, and not any siblings at The Charter School, North Dulwich. The two schools are entirely separate and have independent admissions arrangements.", which would appear to be further evidence there are no links between the admission arrangements of the schools.


----


There is a separate issue of entry to Year 12 from existing Year 11 pupils.


All parents should follow any internal school procedure and apply if the school asks for an application to year 12, but technically it may not actually be an application process in law, and if there were problems with obtaining a year 12 place then the following could be relevant.


I don't think this is an admissions issue as such, and I suspect an admission code adjudicator would refuse to examine the question.


I believe this is an issue that should be raised directly with the school, if it is of concern to a parent of a child at the school.


In a nutshell the school provides an education from Year 7 through Year 13. It is a single school, presumably with a single admission register for Year 7 through to Year 13.


Once a pupil has been admitted to the school in Year 7 (or any other year) the law only allows deletions from the register is limited circumstances, otherwise the removal from the register is potentially unlawful.


The rules are contained in The Education (Pupil Registration) (England) Regulations 2006 and subsequent amendments, such as The Education (Pupil Registration) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2016.


A child on the admissions registers Year 11 may only be removed from the admission register under Regulation 8(1)k, under normal circumstances (there may by other valid for removal, such as permanent exclusion).


The two grounds are:


Regulation 8(k)

- that the pupil will cease to be of compulsory school age before the school next meets and?


(i) the relevant person has indicated that the pupil will cease to attend the school; or

(ii) the pupil does not meet the academic entry requirements for admission to the school?s sixth form.


In these circumstances it is hard to see how a internal candidate on the admission register can apply to join the school: they are already on the school roll, and should not be removed from it unless they indicate they do not wish to join Year 12 or fail to meet any academic criteria stipulated by the school.


If internal Year 11 pupils are not applying to the school then the admission policy as such does not apply to them, although the academic criteria do apply. There would be no right of appeal to an admissions appeal if they were refused a place. It would be the removal from the admission register, potentially contrary to regulation 8(k), that was the issue.


The Charter ED may have an answer to this point, but it does appear to be a matter that could merit investigation to confirm the appropriate regulations are being complied with.


It is not a minor issue. For example if an "offer" was made to an existing pupil that contained conditions other than the academic conditions then this would potentially be unlawful. Alternatively if an existing pupil, who passed the academic criteria, was denied entry to Year 12 because of past detentions, or internal exclusion, then this would also be potentially unlawful.

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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