Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I think that it is important to remember that a new secondary school should help to increase the availability of places at other secondary schools like Charter, Harris Boys and also at schools like haberdashers hilly fields where east dulwich & nunhead children can go (music scholarship places more likely than on distance) increase of secondary school places will have a knock on effect on admissions to other schools.

Hi Denmothersmith,

Any new school is likely to have a much larger admissions footprint if distance based.


But the steering group with the chosen partner would decide the admissions scheme it would like to implement and this would be consulted upon as part of the application process.

"Any new school is likely to have a much larger admissions footprint if distance based "


but the Charter has a distance based footprint ,as do most primary schools ,and has a small admissions footprint .

The size of the footprint is determined by the popularity of the school .Popular school = small admissions footprint .


Or have I totally misunderstood the sentence James ?

I really do not see how distance based admission can result in a much larger admissions foot print? If that were the case then Askes and Charter would have a bigger catchment 'foot print' then Kingsdale which they clearly do not. Happy to have it explained to me though if I have miss-understood.


This really is an opportunity to take on board all the pros and cons of various admissions strategies and come up with something new that serves the majority of applicants fairly. A mix of geographically liked lottery and distance based could work together. I believe Harris Crystal Palace uses a mix of distance and lottery.

Harris CP has an admissions area A which runs on distance, and an admissions area B, which is around the edge of area A, which has a lottery. IIRC area A is 90% of places and B 10%. They also band the kids for entry.

Hi DenmonthSmith, ITATM,

Apolgoies, my mistake, I thought the following was obvious.


IF admissions was distance based...

The Charter School admission footprint, as with other now popular schools, has shrunk partly from a growth in local child numbers and partly from becoming more popular.

All I was suggesting was any new school, whoever provides it, will not convince everyone a year in advance of opening when places are applied for that it will be fabulous. That with success and even just being open a schools credibility will rise, its popularity will rise and IF admissions is distance base that distance will start shrinking. IF admissions based on distance and when it become fabulous that distance would shrink significantly.

Which why many have suggest purely distance based would not be ideal for a variety of reasons.

Thank-you James for clarifying. I still think distance based admission is very open to abuse, and to becoming extremely small as the school and its 'fabulousness' is recognised by parents.


I wonder James if there is information available regarding the numbers of children in year four who reside in a one miles, two mile three , etc., geographical radius of the Dulwich hospital site? Though naturally not all these children would need or want to attend the new school they could all potentially be attendees. These kind of figures could give those deciding the admissions criteria an idea of how many children would possibly benefit/lose out from the various types of lottery/distance admission polices they may be considering.


I understand the frustration with lottery places i.e. you could live next door to Kingsdale and not get a place. But equally frustrating is an influx of renters very close to the school who all pi** off once they have a place leaving poor old long term resident who lives round the corner without a place.


I think there must be a better way. Perhaps there is an Admissions expert (LEA perhaps)who could help the steering group construct the fairest policy?

Pulled from the Sutton report liked by TE44


"Schools that wish to achieve a comprehensive intake should use random allocation, in conjunction with a catchment area, or banding as these admissions policies can help schools to achieve an intake reflecting a wide ability range. One way of doing this, while making sure that those who live very close to schools are not unduly disadvantaged, could be to introduce both ?inner? and ?outer? catchment areas"


Hope the steering group have the courage to do something similar.

Hi


I've been reading the posts with interest. It seems that there is a lot of concern about random allocation which I share. I wonder how to get those views represented on the steering group? Mr Barber was somewhat unclear as to the processes by which that would happen. I am also glad to see that some people have raised the very serious issues surrounding free schools - namely accountability, transparency and quality assurance processes.


I also note that during these threads there have been many calls for a public meeting ie. one larger than can be accommodated at Mr Barber's house. I would support that call now that things have progressed - an open meeting for full and frank discussion of the issues would surely be timely? I know Mr Barber is keen to postpone this until after the application but surely the application will represent the views of the steering group and not necessarily reflect any consensus?

I feel the admission policy is important, where banding is used, the goverments policy

of "fair and transparency" should be followed throughout secondary years, avoiding situations

like we've seen, where children are not being accounted for when reaching gcse's. If a banding system is set up,

How hard is it to give out the figures of children leaving or moving to alternative provision, what band they were in when coming to the school. I realise this is about getting a school up and running, but wonder how muchh say the steering ggroup will have.

James I would appreciate information on reply back from sponsers, as others have said, this iss a local issue.

James: Some sort of compromise between geographical distance and lottery seems to be a good idea. But also, what about some acknowledgment of how long you have lived in an area? Here's a fictitious example based on a true story.


* Family A live on Chesterfield Road. They've lived in East Dulwich for over ten years. Their eldest child is at Goose Green School. Children from their road have always gone to Charter.


* Family B live near Peckham Rye. They have lived in East Dulwich for eight years. Their child goes to Goodrich. In October, the parents contrived a temporary 'separation'. They have arranged to rent a one bed flat near Red Post Hill. It's a 12 month rental. The mother now 'lives' there (ahem), the family home is still Peckham Rye.


* Family C have been in Clapham since they came to London, but last year moved to a house in the Herne Hill Triangle.


All three apply to get into Charter.


Under the current rules, the child of B & C gets an automatic places at Charter. The child of Family A, demonstrably committed to SE22 and the local community long term, is on the waiting list but may well miss out. A criterion that said that the main address you live at must be one you have been at for at least, say, two years would rule out at least the most crass of the parental manipulation that goes on. To be fair to renters, who may have to shift address when it's not their choice, if you have lived in your current address for under two years, but your previous address was also in the catchment area, that would also qualify.


No system is perfect, but the current one is massively skewed towards the wealthy (and to a small number who are morally bankrupt).

Hi Katy,

I feel a lot of sympathy for long term Families being gazumped for school places in the way you've described. The key for me is ensuring we have another equally popular secondary school to avoid such situations.


It seems most secondary providers use banding which would go someway to avoiding those situations described.

James without some geographical restriction ( inner and outer areas for example ) banding widens the geographical area as average candidates living near the school face competition from those below and above average who are offered places to ensure a mixed intake .


You can see this clearly in the distances some of the pupils at ED boys travel to get to the school .

Adding banding isn't going to stop the issue of people moving close to the school to get into it. I think it's more or less impossible to stop that other than having a lottery system like Kingsdale, which I wouldn't support. One of the big problems with secondary school applications in this area is the lack of certainty. If admissions to the new school are by distance and you live close enough to the school or whatever 'nodal points' are chosen, then you can be reasonably certain of getting a place. I appreciate that doesn't bring certainty for people who are on the outer edge of the catchment area but it will certainly help a lot of people. And hopefully if there are enough school places locally then in principle that should remove the incentive to move a short distance to get into a particular catchment.

http://wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/the-green-partys-education-policy.html?m=1


Choices, honesty and fairness seems to have no place in this centrelised education system.


James After your words about decisions of parents, steering committee and local consultation, it seems by

your comment "most secondary providers use banding", what happened to everyone else involved in the decision.



The green party seem the only ones who will stand against the privatisation of our schools.

We have been put in a situation where choices are restricted, no room for change outside a

system created to shut people out. I have no political agenda,and I'm

sorry if this is the wrong thread to air these views, but restriccted or no choice does not correlate

with a Free school.


Edit to say linked blog because cant put up pdf on phone

Hi TE44,

No privatisation of our is planned or proposed.

It is against the law for state schools to be for profit. So I'm bemused with what you've posted.


Hi edanna, ITATM,

I think you're mixing banding with popularity. ED Harris Boys Academy hasn't had any GCSE results yet. Everyone is expecting great results and it's popularity and distance of banded admissions to decrease.


As some have highlighted here simple crow flies can see people moving to guarantee places it also doesn't ensure comprehensive intakes. Banding can result in different issues. Their isn't any one pure correct admissions.

Lottery to me doesn't feel right as we wouldn't necessarily end up with a local community school. People who love close to any school with the demerits of such proximity are unlikely to obtain places when our new. School becomes incredibly popular.

But I don't get to decide these things. It would be the preference of any great provider we all ask to take this project on. And looking around most have banding.

James no I'm not mixing banding with popularity.


It's obvious that if you have ability bands that need to filled you are seeking to offer places to non average ability children . Both below and above average .Because you are looking for non average children you have to cast your net further afield .

There are two ways of banding. Lewisham bands all their primary children in year 5 through a non-verbal reasoning test. All the children are put on a continuum and this is divided into five bands. The child's allocated band is included on the CAF and the schools participating then take equal numbers from each band on distance.


The other method is used by several local schools and involves schools administering their own NVR tests to those who have applied. They are also divided into equal bands and offers are again made on distance within bands to achieve equal numbers.


The slight difference is that under the second system, the school cannot be short of applicants in any one band.

Just a quick question James - do you know why Southwark do not provide statistics (like they used to) per school, Lewisham do....


http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/myservices/education/schools/school-admission/applying-to-start-secondary-school/Documents/SecondarySchools201415.pdf


It would be very useful to back up so much mis guided ideas about banding, ability, etc. pretty sure these stats must be somewhere - Kinsdale for example claim to use 3 bands and then a lottery within them...but I would like to know how many places within each band.


It seems that this new school which is very much needed is coming under incredible scrutiny before even confirmed yet the schools existing already seem to do what they like (admissions wise).

I think there is more than a slight difference between banding an existing discrete group and banding used to ensure that each cohort contains a specific range of abilities .


The former is simply dividing up an exiting group into 5 ( or whatever ) the latter is seeking applicants to fill bands .

Which system seeks applicants? I don't think a single Lewisham school lacked applicants altogether in a particular band. They may well have different numbers of applicants in each, and distances will vary, but I don't think any target bands they are 'low' in. Obviously when you band applicants to a specific school you run no risk at all of not filling all your bands, but you can't be completely sure you reflect the local or national spread of abilities because your group is self selecting and could conceivably all be at one end of the ability spectrum, divided into bands within that.


Outside the theory of it, the reality is that children mostly apply to their nearest school so long as it meets their needs, so the banding will just be dividing up the local kids.

The point I'm making is that banding on its own and without geographical elements added in ,like Bacons College for example won't ensure that places go to local people .


Harris give very little detail about their banding system - for example it would be interesting to know whether they are dividing up that years intake into 9 equal bands or whether the higher bands take a greater number with the individual bands being unequal in size .


Dividing up a nos of people into equal size bands is what you are referring to I think but there are different types of banding .


"Banding

1.25 Pupil ability banding is a permitted form of selection used by some

admission authorities to ensure that the intake for a school includes a

proportionate spread of children of different abilities. Banding can be used to

produce an intake that is representative of:


a) the full range of ability of applicants for the school(s);


b) the range of ability of children in the local area; or

c) the national ability range. "


Schools Admissions Code D of E

Hi ITATM,

Sorry I had assumed banding and distance within bands. A la Lewisham school generally and I believe ED Harris.

If it aims to ensure a comprehensive representative sample of local children across all abilities then that would work for me. To ensure it's working I would anticipate any school we help create regularly reviewing admissions to ensure its meeting this aim.

Tyis would be for places after things like siblings, SEN, looked after children.

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...