Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Renata, are you saying based on current legislation the only ways to increase primary school provision is to create a free school (and that there are multiple sponsors interested), expand the facilities of the existing primary schools or continue with bulges?


You all have informed us about the interest from the parents looking to set up the German / English school. Are there others?


Pickle, why do you believe Harris will automatically be awarded a construction contract to build the school(s) with government money if they are succesful in their application to the Secretary of State to open the school? That would be worrying. Have I misunderstood what you meant?

I am simply astonished that we are in a situation where school provision is determined by people emailing to say 'I'd like my child to have a school place, please'. Is no one at all in a position of authority in charge of planning? Why have the very clear demographics been ignored to this extent? How can we be in a position where it is actually impossible for a local authority to provide education on the basis of need?


As others have said, I don't know enough about Harris to have a view on it, but I am suspicious of any system in which public money is put into private hands without a thorough, transparent tendering process.


Does any other country have this situation? Education should be an obligation on Government. We pay for schools through taxation but we can't have enough schools unless we email someone?


I'm also not interested in talk about the last administration. I understand the legislative issues are not new to the Coalition. But why is the Free School policy, which funds schools that are often by nature non-inclusive, unrepresentative and selective, being pursued, to the detriment of adequate provision for our children?

Hi simonethe beaver,

The Harris Federation is a charity.

They have associated companies to aggregate schools spends to negotiate umbrella contracts. Pretty normal best procurement practice.


This inability of local councils to provide new school started under the last bill Tony Blair passed in government. If they build a school they have to offer it up for others to run. Nationally Labour and Convservative parties when in government have not trusted councils to build and run schools. Truly daft. But I can't change this. I can only work within these daft national rules. So if we have to have free schools to fulfil the requirement for new schools and more places - and expanding schools the council is proposing to ask the national government for ?40-50m and some would then go above the ideal 2 or 3 form entries - Harris Federation has the best track record.


The emailing. To prove demand for a new free school the agency the Dept of Education use need to know the name of parents, DOB of children and the postcode of where they live and ideally an email or postal address. They want to see adequate demand to ensure public demand wont be wasted. The threshold ofr a 3 form entry (90pupils per year) is 40 1 year olds and 40 2 year olds. The quickest way of collecting evidence of such support is by email. Hence the emails. Equally it could be a petitions, letters, etc.


I can see a lot wrong with the system but I can try and work the system to help East Dulwich or stand on the sidelines playing politics saying how rubbish the system is.

Yes, I agree. The free school movement in both countries is more about offering parent?s choice-- ie if they don't like their local school, they can set up their own school and creating a space for alternative schools to innovate outside the national curriculum etc. That's a real simplification as that's not always the case but I think you get what I mean. It?s not meant to be the only type of school being created.




simonethebeaver Wrote:

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

> I know nothing of Sweden but in the USA free

> schools are not the ONLY way to set up a new

> school. Surely they should be merely optional here

> too? A specialist complement to state provision?

What if though I don't WANT my daughter (who as current catchments stand will not get into any primary school) to go to a free school? What if I would like her to go to one of the existing very good schools a short walk from my house rather than a new one on the other side of East Dulwich? What are my options? It seems all I can do is lie. I am interested in the idea of permanently expanding our current schools-who do I tell?


And as I said, I am fully aware of the history here. I'm not trying to make party political points. I'm just deeply frustrated.

I have openly said I have reservations about the current system. However, I think the idea is that if 80 of the new primary school children do want a free school (as evidenced by a petition / email etc), they will apply for it once it is created and will go there. This will create more room in the LA schools that are currently oversubscribed so hopefully everyone will be getting what they want (hah!)


I like the idea of parental choice but I think the way this is being implemented leaves a lot to be desired and I would like more details regarding the charity that will be running the school being awarded building contracts (if that's the case) that they can presumably make a profit on. If that's true, it shouldn't be allowed unless they are funding the build themselves.


Edited to add: I'd like to see some proof on this though as it's quite a serious thing to allege. I've emailed Harris to find out.

'?

Is Harris Federation a charity or a business?


The annual report for 2010 shows that the Harris Federation has a turnover of ?130 million. It employs 1,157 people.

Whilst for legal, and perhaps moral reasons it presents as a charity (it was made an exempt charity in August 2011 so it no longer has to publish accounts with the charity Commission) its operations make it appear much more like a business.

It runs two separate but connected business arms

Harris Academies Project Management Limited ?The company is used for construction work on a number of Harris Federation academy buildings.?? Made ?337,000 profit.

HCTC Enterprises limited ?The company is used to carry on business as a general commercial company?. It operates the Lewis Sports and Leisure Centre and made ?23,000 profit.'


From One of the links I posted

Just to change track a little, the school where I taught in Islington, became an Academy maybe 3/4 years ago now. We were a fully comprehensive school allowing children in based purely on their distance from the school.


When the sponsors took over, and we became an Academy, our intake was based on quartiles. To put it simply, the intake of the school in Y7 would look like this....


25% capable of achieving A*/As at GCSE

25% capable of getting B/Cs at GCSE

25% capable of getting D/Es at GCSE

25% capable of getting below E grade.


Now that would appear fair, but actually what happened is if the school filled up the lowest quartile, it didn't matter how close you were to the school, you couldn't come. And when they didn't fill the top quartile, they opened the catchment area to the whole of London. They therefore fiddled with the improvement of their results right from the start, by improving their intake and neglecting local students.


So, having a look at a Harris School admissions policy, they also 'admit students representing all levels of ability among applicants for admission'. So I imagine a similar thing is happening. I know this doesn't necessary impact on a Primary School as this is Secondary policy, but it is obviously easier for schools to improve results if they improve the intake of the students, this leads to better results at OFSTED and everyone looks amazing.


I left that Academy in Islington swiftly, and work for a school that gives places to students of all abilities, even if one year we end up with no students in the top 25%.


Am I making sense?

That's exactly it ... 'fair banding'

If a school is oversubscribed and other schools are not operating the same policy, a school can improve its intake in this way.


After all, if children were fairly distributed across all schools, the governments targets would be met. It's just at the moment schools don't all get a balanced intake.

I'm also concerned that a very emotive issue, one of school places for our children has requested support without being hugely clear what type of school we're all voting for.


The title of this thread should say 'New Harris Academy primary for SE22'. Everybody wants a new ED primary....not everybody wants another Harris School.

Having been a lone 'bright kid' ( only one in year to go to Uni) in a rough comp in the North I would say manipulating the intake by fair banding seems like a good thing. Having an academic mix in the school and providing each child with academic 'peers' is surely better for individual children. Or am I missing the point?

It's not whether we have a new primary or not James. We obviously need one.


It's your repeated comments about how amazing Harris are. I'm trying to open up for people, exactly why academies with a selective admissions policy [otherwise known as fair banding] can turn around their results so swiftly, show massive improvement to OFSTED and gain their outstanding award. They've acquired their 'good name' at Secondary and now using it to expand into the Primary sector. I don't feel comfortable with it.


We will therefore never really know if Harris are any good, because they've never been playing the game on the same level playing field as a true comprehensive.

Kitty, the problem happens when one of your quartiles is over subscribed.


Say you've got 100 kids trying to get a place at the school. Under previous systems if they all lived close by, they'd get in, end of story. But now, 29 of those kids are in the lowest quartile say. There's only space for 25 of them on the school rules. So 4 kids can't go. They might have named that school as a first choice causing problems in choosing another school, and that other school won't be their closest. Tricky times when you're 11.


But the big issue is, when an Academy starts, they are always seen to take over a failing school and improve it. Everyone thinks....WOW, they must have such good facilities, a beautiful building, better teachers, brighter management - when actually all they did was ensure their intake was cleverer than last years by their tricky and not well publicised admissions policy.

kittysailing Wrote:

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

> Having been a lone 'bright kid' ( only one in year

> to go to Uni) in a rough comp in the North I would

> say manipulating the intake by fair banding seems

> like a good thing. Having an academic mix in the

> school and providing each child with academic

> 'peers' is surely better for individual children.

> Or am I missing the point?



It's a very good idea. I believe it was how Ilea used to operate for all schools.


However in the current context, it's used pretty much exclusively by a acAdemies who can the report rapidly improving results, while the remaining schools often see their levels of prior attainment on entry fall

I may be wrong but I think all Lewisham secondaries band. They test the kids in yr5 in Lewisham primaries with the same test. If you look at the Lewisham secondary application booklet, it gives the distances and application numbers for each band. I don't know if Southwark publishes those figures?

EC Harris is not the Harris Foundation! What are you doing? I work with EC Harris and its not even remotely related. Please check your facts and be carfeful before posting...




Fuschia Wrote:

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

> http://www.echarris.com/pdf/8286_Case%20Study_West

> %20London%20Free%20School_Final.pdf

Harris has not just been assessed on their aggregate results but on individual pupil progress. Individual pupils have progressed well above what is expected of them based on their capabilities on entering the Harris school. This cannot be manipulated by fair banding. Why people refuse to acknowledge this is odd...



eco79 Wrote:

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

> It's not whether we have a new primary or not

> James. We obviously need one.

>

> It's your repeated comments about how amazing

> Harris are. I'm trying to open up for people,

> exactly why academies with a selective admissions

> policy can turn around their results so swiftly,

> show massive improvement to OFSTED and gain their

> outstanding award. They've acquired their 'good

> name' at Secondary and now using it to expand into

> the Primary sector. I don't feel comfortable with

> it.

>

> We will therefore never really know if Harris are

> any good, because they've never been playing the

> game on the same level playing field as a true

> comprehensive.

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...