Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Green Goose Wrote:

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


'I guess anyone would pay for private education if

> they could afford it ( eg Clegg and Dionne Abbott

> et al) so I hazard a guess you are actually saying

> it's unfair because your income doesn't cover this

> on top of all the things you want including

> holidays, car, fashion, mobiles, meals out etc

> etc.'



You guess wrong then. I would not choose a private education for my children - my choice is state schooling regardless of whether or not I could afford a private school.

HP

My experience is that so much depends on the actual childs ambition and willingness to learn.

I went to a very famous highly regarded girls school full of kids from extremely wealthy families. Quite a lot of these kids in late teens ended up just dropping out, doing drugs going travelling etc etc almost as a backlash to their parents pushiness and ambition.

When I went to college (Or Uni as people now annoyingly call it) there was a strong contingent of state educated students, and in fact only a handful went to private schools.

In fact where I work now one of my colleagues has a Phd having grown up on a sink estate in Manchester, with a single parent.He is the first member of his entire family who has ever gone onto any form of higher education.And he attended a pretty grim comprehensive school.

I actually find it quite annoying when people consider that paying for an education is investing in their child's future.

The best investment any parent can make is to be there for their child, encouraging them and nurturing them.

I abhor pushy hot house parenting as I've seen it bite so many people on the bum. and screw up many kids teenage years.

I always wonder are the parents genuinely doing it for their child? or is it just to keep up with the jonses.

We could afford to go private. We have chosen not to.


I abhor private schools. They perpetuate privilege and inequality of opportunity which is bad for everyone in our community rich and poor. Every child has the right to a great education. Many of our state schools provide this, all should.


Asking for tax breaks to ensure your child is educated apart from the whole community is farcical.


As for charitable status for these schools when they refuse to share their playing fields, we should challenge this as a community.

It's true that not all independent schools are the same and that Alleyn's is certainly more inclusive and outward looking than many. This discussion has moved into a more general conversation about the place of private education however which is a valid one. It's ridiculous to invoke 'class warriors' and 'drum banging', which is just a way of closing down a legitimate debate.

cle Wrote:

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

> There are shades of grey here. Not all schools

> (private or state) are equal.

>

> Alleyn's is not Eton - it's a day school, co-ed,

> inner city and next to an estate etc...

>

> Just a chance for the usual tedious class warriors

> to bang their drums.


'usual tedious class warriors' - which are they then???

In what way is Alleyns more inclusive I wonder? I would be very interested to hear how many of its intake come from the state sector and are not tutored to pass the exams and interviews which appear to be careful constructed to keep the riff raff out. I don't buy the bursaries argument when the examples given here are for bursaries offered to the formerly wealthy suddenly down on their luck.


I've a gut reaction against these schools but can hear the arguments about their and the Dulwich Estate's impact on the local area for good. I suppose I'd like to see more of it. I can't see at all how the charitable status is justified.

One of the things that I find amazing is the number of people who pay for private education but who then also pay for extra private tuition. If the private education is so good, why the need for extra tuition?


If you can afford it, then it's better to send your kids to a good comprehensive school and, like us, supplement it with a bit of private tutoring, thereby saving some money for funding the university education that lucky baby boomers like me got for free at one of the best universities in the UK.

I'm not in principle rather by gut but I'm open to arguments ...


Practically I think that these schools, and the estate, should be more respectful of their original purpose and should also be working harder to have an impact locally.


There are absolutely loads of ways they could do this from sharing facilities to sharing ideas to integrating pupils via sports / clubs / theatrical productions; to obeying traffic laws (and, for example, not using Townley Road like their own private car park to the detriment and danger of other road users, cars and cyclists); to promoting cycle paths so that ALL children can get to school safely by bike rather than just their pupils (I;m thinking specifically here of the unpaved paths on Hunts Slip Road which could be made into a cycle path for Kingsdale pupils use whereas at the moment the massive urban tractor dropping off / double parking etc and stony paths mean cycling is very dangerous).


If their purpose is genuinely education and charitable rather than service provision to a wealthy elite then they really ought to be doing more to promote that aim. But if, as other posters have mentioned, they are in the business of running a business and servicing the requirements of people who wish to buy those services then that is fine but they shouldn't be afforded the advantages of charitable status.

Miacis Wrote:

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

> We could afford to go private. We have chosen not

> to.

>

> I abhor private schools. They perpetuate privilege

> and inequality of opportunity which is bad for

> everyone in our community rich and poor. Every

> child has the right to a great education. Many of

> our state schools provide this, all should.



Is this view of private schools based on your own experience, having gone to one? The private schools I know of are actually very community-minded and actively encourage students to become involved in charity/volunteer work (whether in the UK or abroad). It would be incredibly difficult to go through private school without having been part of some philanthropic activity. And, of course, there are thousands upon thousands of privately educated individuals who continue to be the largest contributors to charity.


'Inequality of opportunity' seems an odd reason not to send your children to private school. You could agrue that simply by living in Dulwich, London, the UK, Europe you are also perpetuating inequality of opportunity. You are fortunate that you are able to afford to live in an area which offers good state schools - many don't have this opportunity.

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> It's true that not all independent schools are the

> same and that Alleyn's is certainly more inclusive

> and outward looking than many. This discussion has

> moved into a more general conversation about the

> place of private education however which is a

> valid one. It's ridiculous to invoke 'class

> warriors' and 'drum banging', which is just a way

> of closing down a legitimate debate.


I don't think it's a way of shutting down a debate - it's a way of framing an alternative perspective, making the point about not all private schools being the same (which you acknowledge) and adding a bit of depth and colour to what has been quite a black & white, one-sided discussion.


I can't see that all this shrill "I abhor..." nonsense isn't an attempt to shut down debate or indeed, chippy shouldered class whinging. Ironically, with a turn of phrase so pompous to make an Etonian English 'master' roll his eyes.

EDLove Wrote:


> 'Inequality of opportunity' seems an odd reason

> not to send your children to private school. You

> could agrue that simply by living in Dulwich,

> London, the UK, Europe you are also perpetuating

> inequality of opportunity. You are fortunate that

> you are able to afford to live in an area which

> offers good state schools - many don't have this

> opportunity.


The world isn't fair, so why would you care about fairness?

cle Wrote:

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


> I don't think it's a way of shutting down a debate

> - it's a way of framing an alternative

> perspective, making the point about not all

> private schools being the same (which you

> acknowledge) and adding a bit of depth and colour

> to what has been quite a black & white, one-sided

> discussion.

>

> I can't see that all this shrill "I abhor..."

> nonsense isn't an attempt to shut down debate or

> indeed, chippy shouldered class whinging.

> Ironically, with a turn of phrase so pompous to

> make an Etonian English 'master' roll his eyes.


Saying you abhor a system which is the focus of debate, is simply stating a strong a view on the topic under discussion. Talking about 'the usual class warriors banging a drum' is dismissive. It's playing the man, not the ball. There's a clear difference, to me at least.

Speaking from experience it's an awful school full of staff that are protected by the private school bubble to do and say as they pleased. Some of the behaviour i witnessed from was atrocious and wouldn't be tolerated in the state system.


I remember a particular specimen who was a year 7 tutor who had a habit of 'accidentally' walking in to girls changing areas and making inappropriate comments.


These places are designed to prioritise the child prodigies and marginalise what's left using 'sets' for each subject. I've noticed they have erected higher fences and invested in security systems keep local people out and maintain their white middle/upper class surroundings.


The few bursary places were, as mentioned, initiated to appease their charity status and represent only a tiny fraction of students. I believe these institutions are inherently elitist and racist and i was so relieved to get out of there to a normal state comprehensive where i felt valued and respected. I was able to get on to university and a career which i feel would have been very difficult had i remained.

Couple of quick points:


Being inner city and next to an estate doesn't necessarily make a school more inclusive - the ethnic/economic mix of these schools is strikingly different to our local state schools. It would be good if these schools actually published data in the same way that state schools do so we could look at the facts - unfortunately they don't. Nonetheless you can observe the mix.


Many, many young people do charitable/voluntary work - from both state and private. Not seen any evidence to say that indep school pupils do more. Interesting study reported here that found that poor people actually give proportionately more to charity http://www.theguardian.com/society/2001/dec/21/voluntarysector.fundraising

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...