Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just to say, this phase of consultation is now closed (if you go on the link, it explains it on the Haberdasher's website) - because the application will be submitted early October. However, there will be further scope to share views about admissions policies - i.e. if the bid gets to the next stage - and of course there is the public meeting tomorrow night too. There is still the option to show support for the Haberdasher's bid on the link posted above.


On the catchment area, I guess it is difficult for anyone to predict, though I understand why it is frustrating for you. I am (as I've previously said) on the Haberdasher's parent steering group, and part of the reason I support Habs is that is that I too live too far away to have a hope of Charter (either existing or proposed new school). I have always supported the idea of a school which offers the right admissions policy for the area. This is only anecdotal, but I have heard of a parent who attended the Charter public meeting and was told his children would have 'no chance' of entry to the new Charter if they were East of Lordship Lane (let alone East of Barry Road, which looking at the map above is where a huge section of the demand is).

Hi Belle. I have also heard something similar and now that I've read the post from MsMaz I am really concerned. We live in the Peckham Rye area and I assumed the Charter bid would be covering there because otherwise they will be duplicating some of their existing catchment area which just doesn't make sense. Especially when you look at the Heat map. Thanks Samstopit. Very disappointed with Charter if this is the case.

As Belle says, the period of consultation has officially ended, because the bid is due in on 10th October. However if you want to add comments about admissions or anything else please email [email protected] and your feedback will be included. You can also give your feedback face to face tomorrow night to the Habs team.


It's not too late to register support for the Habs bid on the link that samstopit posted above. If you registered early on via James Barber it's important that you re-register on the Habs web site because there is an option on there to tick the box saying that Habs would be your first choice if it is the chosen provider. DfE need this box ticked.


Hope to see some of you tomorrow evening.

Thanks to all those on the steering group. I did email Charter about admissions as wasn't sure if I'd be in their catchment and this was the response:


Thank you for your query regarding Admissions criteria "as the crow flies". We are proposing to open our new school to meet the local demand of families who cannot get their child into high quality local provision - and banding does not do this, of course, as numbers for each band mean that families who live reasonably close, but for whom the narrow band numbers have already been filled, will not be offered a place.

"As the crow flies" is the feedback we have received from our consultation events with families and the local community, and best addresses local need. In your specific case (without knowing your road) it would be highly likely that a Peckham Rye Park address would be well within the "catchment" area, as we are keeping the measurement nodle point to the furthest southern edge of the proposed school site.


So I'm sure it would have to stretch beyond east of Lordship Lane but I did ask further if they could do a geographical estimate from the postcode of supporters (just like your lovely heat map). But no answer, was just advised to come along to one of the upcoming meetings.

I'm sure if you email them they will take you off their list. Thanks for posting that reply. Makes interesting reading.


Habs haven't made a final commitment to banding by the way, they are genuinely consulting on the admissions procedure. If they are the successful bidder they will consult again on admissions. I've been assured by the Habs project team that banding doesn't lead to local children being denied a place, especially for a popular school where local demand is likely to be high. The intention of banding is to ensure a comprehensive intake.

looking at the stats for Forest Hill Boys I see that the different ability bands have differing 'last distance offered' distances, so banding is not a magic solution. if you fall in the 'wrong' band you end up disappointed. Are the bands proposed for Habs based on local applicants? Or some notional average? If all the children in Se22 are mini geniuses then there won't be room for everyone in the top band! Or is that not how it works?

Katgod, if you scroll back to page 17 of this thread at the bottom of the page mariababe posted a document which explains the way Habs do banding in their lewisham schools quite well. Several pages of discussion about banding follow that post.


Please remember that Habs can do admissions differently in southwark in response to consultation.


Feel free to email questions / suggestions as suggested above or come in person tomorrow.

I had a Charter flyer in the mail today.


Interestingly, it says that even if I've signed up to the Haberdashers campaign, I still need to sign up to the Charter campaign as well, as each bid is considered separately. Fair enough. Except that the Charter new school form requires you to sign to say that


?I would select The Charter School Educational Trust?s East Dulwich School as the first choice of secondary school for my child?.


Is that the statutory question? If so how can you support two bids? As it happens I suspect I'm in the existing Charter catchment, so wouldn't put the new school as a "first" choice and wouldn't sign on the basis of this specific wording. So why leaflet me?


Is it the case that only parents likely to be within the catchment of the new school "count" for DFE purposes? This would help explain why Charter might want an overlapping catchment - they can rely on the support of parents within the existing catchment area who may already have a connection with the school?


Doesn't affect me personally, just interested.

Actually ignore that, I found the other thread discussing the 'first choice" wording issue.


Also have answered my own question, found the DFE assessment criteria - pasted below. Not quite sure how the form on the Charter website is going to satisfy the second bullet point though -I would have expected the form to include some sort of "tick the box to confirm you've received and read info" thing on it? Actually, same applies to the HABS form. But I do wonder whether actively / expressly encouraging people to support more than one application undermines the school's argument / makes submissions look more like a "generic expression of interest".


"Complete the parental demand table in the application form showing how many parents (or students for 16 to 19) would select your school as their first choice for the first two years of the school?s life

? Demonstrate that potential parents (or students for 16 to 19) have made an informed decision when choosing your school as their first choice. Please include the text you have used in leaflets or other promotional material for prospective parents (or students for 16 to 19) about the particular characteristics of your school. You must make sure that this adequately describes the school you are proposing; we will not consider generic expressions of interest in a new school to be sufficient evidence that there is demand for the school you are proposing

? Provide a map which shows that potential pupils (or students for 16 to 19) live within commuting distance of your school

? Provide details on the extent of any current or forecast shortage (basic need) or surplus of places in the relevant phase of education within the school?s proposed vicinity (if you have already set this out in the vision section, please refer to the relevant page)

? Provide a brief summary of the standards in local schools in the relevant phase using Ofsted judgements and pupil attainment and progression data (if you have already set this out in the vision section, please refer to the relevant page)"

The bids need to show that there is a parent demand for a secondary school on this site. In order to do this parents need to say they would put the new school as their first preference.....no one will check up later to see if you did indeed put it first. Nor will anyone get into trouble for ticking both campaigns as their first preference - it just shows that the school will be full whichever organisation ends up running it.
I'd have to add to Cora's point that if you feel strongly about one school or the other it might be wise to only tick the box about first choice for one school. I suspect that after a few years the Charter catchment around the hospital site would tighten and many families in ED would be out of catchment. If I thought the Charter bid was going to solve the lack of provision in ED I'd support both bids.

Hmm. But presumably you wouldn't expect existing charter parents to be supporting the proposal, as presumably they'll be sending younger siblings to the same school as older ones?


Apologies, as haven't been following this to date, is the plan for the two Charter schools - if Charter is successful - to share facilities? Presumably yes - so that children at "old charter" would get the benefit of facilities at New Charter? Is that a factor in the Charter bid? Will/ could admissions be done on a combined basis eg so that children in the overlapping catchment area are encouraged to join one school or the other? Eg if encouraged to choose New Charter (or if decide to do so because New Charter has better facilities) then the Old Charter catchment would move westward towards Herne Hill and the new catchment would remain quite small on the ED side? Or am I confused?

I honestly don't know why charter are leafleting their existing catchment. I could speculate but would rather not on here. I agree with you that it's not appropriate for you to support their bid. The campaign for a new school for East Dulwich should be engaging families who don't already have access to co-ed secondary provision.


Hopefully somebody who knows more about Charter's plans can answer your questions about how they will manage applicants across both sites. I'm aware that they plan to share facilities.

Sorry yes, of course if you have preference for one then of course stick to that.....and a reminder that if you want to grill the Haberdashers campaign about admissions or any other subject there is a drop-in session at Goose Green TONIGHT 7-8.30pm

I'm just idly speculating as I'm not personally affected.


James, if you read this, does the funding for a new school come out of the same funding pot as the funding for a school expansion? Just pondering whether a "new school" proposal would have some obvious financial advantages to Charter over a proposal to expand the existing school? Or other advantages eg improved facilities for existing charter students? Just seems odd to have two similar schools run by the same provider so close together - surely there'd be obvious efficiency gains in merging them?

Sorry, my tone didn't come across how I intended it to , they are good points you raised but I thought if you posted it on the charter thread then it's gives them a chance to reply in the event they aren't viewing this particular thread .

Don't worry - not offended! Hopefully I'm not going over too much old ground, just that I only started to pay proper attention to this when I was leafletted today!


Will hope over to the other thread, but if anyone can enlighten me as to the number of new places being proposed by each of the bids I'd be interested....

Habs is proposing a 6 form entry secondary school plus a sixth form. And hopefully a decent amount of outside space.


... Which means no room for a primary on the site. Those who follow us on FB / twitter will have seen today's article in Southwark news. See attached.

Actually just coming back to an earlier point, the bids don't just need to show that there's support for "a secondary school" on the site, they need to be tied to a particular secondary school and there needs to be proper evidence that those who have signed up have received reasonably detailed info about the particular option in question - or at least that's what the material on the new schools network site seems to indicate ( including the template survey which says it is approved by dfe). ( with my stickler for detail hat on it's not clear to me how the bidders are going to evidence this, eg there's little detail given on the online sign up form for Charter. Maybe email more detailed info to those who have signed up and give them a chance to withdraw?)


Am sure those involved in the bid know what they're doing but having multiple bids doesn't seem to fit well with the dfe reqts. A pity that there couldn't be a single form, with people listing their preference...




Intexas, this is why I don't think leafleting me makes sense. The question I'm being asked to answer isn't whether I think there should be a new school, it's whether I would choose Charter 2 over Charter 1, a decision I guess I would take in practice having regard to the likelihood of getting in to Charter 1. But given I am very close and the two schools will presumably be similar, how do I make that choice? By nominating Charter2 I'd be suggesting there was something lacking at Charter 1, wouldn't I?


Enough on this - must stop googling....

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...