Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I'm not surprised Mellors.


At a community council meeting I attended last year, the argument I heard from one councillor for allowing a nasty oversized building was that there were other nasty oversized buildings in the vicinity already, and it's not as if this was a nice place worth conserving. Or words to that effect. I may be exaggerating slightly, but not much.

It may be a better looking building. But I'd bet anything its not.


I can't think that there are any other buildings of that size in the vicinity unless my memory fails me. Its hideous.


On the upside, my two year old boy is delighted by the amount of different cranes and diggers, so its free entertainment for us at the moment. I am sure it will be somewhat less entertaining come September 2010...


(I can see it from my back window as well, I bet half of ED can with the size of the b*gger!)

I think it's going to be great, what an addition to East Dulwich and an opportunity to everyone who is lucky enough to be a pupil. We just came back to find a leaflet through the door regarding the sister school across the other side of the Peckham Rye, Ofsted have given it a top report, the improvement since it became a Harris academy is nothing short of a transformation. Well done to the Local councillors for supporting the building of this new facility.

antijen Wrote:

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

> http://www.antiacademies.org.uk/index.php

>

> Maybe the next academy will be a skyscraper with

> big bold writing of the venture capitalists name

> in gold.


Antijen, What is your specific objection? The fact that non public money is involved or that Academies tend (they're not all perfect by any means) to improve the academic performance of the pupils they serve?


The record of Local Education Authorities here in LOndon, and elsewhere, has hardly been inspiring in improving academic performance.

No MM, there are many reasons, they do not listen to what the parents, staff or children want, there consultation period is merely a stage in law they must go through, where they dont listen but of course it is put through regardless. Our goverment are happy to hand over our childrens education to private companys who seem above the law. I have spoken with teachers who are working in schools, (now academies), who are extremely unhappy with how they are being treated. My childrens school was put into special meausures by Ofsted, regardless of not fitting the criteria. the governing body was sacked enabling them to continue there plans for an academy whilst taking away the votes from the people who were elected to represent us. It is crooked through and through.
The academy will come under the Ofsted inspection regime to ensure the quality of provision delivered to the pupils meets set standards. The inspection framework used has become more stringent which can only be a good thing. Further more a new academy locally can only be a good thing and demonstrate the investment in education, which when all is said and done can't be a bad thing.

My son's school ( Pimlico ) has become an Academy .

Stakeholders ( including parents/carers ) were consulted about the decision and 94% voted against the school becoming an Academy.

I think the " consultation " gave many of us our first taste of the spin that surrounds Academies.

Some Academies show improved exam results ,some don't.

The Academy at Peckham has improved exam results but GCSE results are still below the Government's minimum magic 30% achieving 5 A - C grades.

Ofsted has 3 grades - outstanding,good and satisfactory ( the latter is defined by Ofsted as "not good enough ",which may give you an introduction into the workings of Ofsted )so for the Peckham Academy to get "good"is not quite the same thing as a "top report ".

Many Academies ( and Kingsdale in the past ,don't know about now ) enter pupils for GNVQ's where one GNVQ pass is equal to ( but not recognised by most F and HE institutions as the equivalent of ) 4 GCSE's at A-C.

I have been told by a teacher at my son's school that the English GCSE taken this year included an online test that could be taken as many times as necessary .

I have also been told that weak students are removed from the classroom for one to one help that involves concentrating on bringing course work ( which is meant to be completed independently ) up to standard.

So on the " improvement of results " front I have misgivings .

I have other misgivings about Academies in general in that they privatise state education and remove it from the state sector.

The sponsor can determine pay and conditions for staff ( existing teachers enjoy protection for 2 years ) creating a 2 tier employment structure for staff and teachers and fragmenting the existing education structure.

They enjoy huge freedoms and are exempt from much of the legislation that applies to state schools - eg the legislation surrounding SEN ,the legislation around parent/carers right of appeal regarding exclusion.


The government gives the impression that academies are subject to to the same rules of accountability as the maintained sector .The reality is that these rules vary from academy to academy and are negoitated by the sponsor.

The sponsor determines the school's Governing Body - at my son's school we now have a governing body entirely dominated by sponsor representatives ,with one elected parent governor and no staff or teacher representation at all.

My personal experience of involvement of parents in the life of the school is that it's all a facade.

A campaign by the school ( to call it half hearted would give it undeserved praise ) to attract parent reps has resulted in a handful of parents attending termly meetings where the agenda and discussion is entirely controlled by the school .

Consultations have involved 3 selfselected parents attending meetings during the school day .

It all looks good in the school Newsletter and on paper - but the spin doesn't match the reality.


All Academies benefit from increased state funding ( the sponsor's contribution is often minimal - the interest from a ?2 million trust fund ,on which the sponsor claims tax relief ,and can be a non financial contribution of "DNA " .)

Quite why there can't be a level playing field with all state schools benefitting from extra funding is a mystery to me.

Why do schools have to be infused with business ideals ?,why does art work by students have to carry the sponsor's logo ?sixth formers made to adopt a dress code on the grounds that it improves learning and prepares them for employment and university ?Should GCSE students be bribed to attend crammer classes by the promise of laptops ?

Should so much of the way a school is run be uninformed by parent's views or wishes?

Totally agree with you! My Son has just finished at Pimlico and we have also been through the "system" at Peckham Academy with My Daughter. Both of which joined the schools before any change. Where as Peckham Academy may have improved their results, If you look closely at the management structure and in house politics you will find that it still isn`t a school with a tight working relationship within either the Parent/ Teacher or Teaching staff/ Management circles and it is the Indians and not the Chiefs who are keeping it together.


My Son was encouraged to attend extra lessons during the 6 weeks holiday at Pimlico and all pupils who attended were given mobile phone tops up cards for attending each week. They were also taken on a free trip to Thorpe park as a "perk" for trying to improve their grades. Morale amongst the original teachers has been very low as "Management" have come in with an agenda, Totally disregarded anything about the School which was a positive and tried to change everything within a short space of time. Pimlico wasn`t the best school in Westminster but it allowed each child to be an individual. Academies turn into business investments and lose sight of the very people they should be helping. Schools are meant to be a place of learning and encouragement not a place where children are encouraged to attended for financial reward. It will be their loss, A very much loved teacher left at the end of last term because of the amount of changes enforced without consultation. You can`t run a school like a business in the same way that you couldn`t run a business like a school. Two totally different worlds and something that will end in tears.

Mscrawthew - yes my son has also had to say goodbye to a fabulous Science teacher .

You're so right ,Pimlico used to allow children to be individuals ,now if you're bold enough to criticise the regime you're in for trouble.

I know of a pupil who runs an alternative school newsletter/paper - guess what? She's threatend with exclusion and told on a weekly basis by the head that if she doesn't like the school she should leave.

That really doesn`t suprise me :'( If my Son were to attend sixth form in September he would be based at Westminister Boys, Sorry "Academy" Something he doesn`t want to do. We are probably talking about the same teacher who was not only an excellent Science Teacher but my Son`s Head of year all the way through. Lovely Lady who genuinely cared about her pupils. Like I said, it will be their loss!

Two of my children also go to Pimlico, one halfway through sixth form the other does not wish to attend sixth form there.

I think its such a shame so many good teachers have left, but like the pupil who run the newsletter, many teachers felt there cards were marked for expressing there disapproval of academy status. Pimlico appealed to us because it really did seem to celebrate differences and individuality.

This sounds so like a political party line ! I would be so surprised if a really good school emerged from that hideous overcrowded site ! My wider experience of Harris is that much improvement is achieved by removing kids who don't fit the bill - obviously the quickest way to show improved results, behaviour etc !!!

brendapermaul Wrote:

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

> My

> wider experience of Harris is that much

> improvement is achieved by removing kids who don't

> fit the bill - obviously the quickest way to show

> improved results, behaviour etc !!!


Quick where do I sign?

antijen Wrote:

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

> No MM, there are many reasons, they do not listen

> to what the parents, staff or children want, there

> consultation period is merely a stage in law they

> must go through, where they dont listen but of

> course it is put through regardless. Our goverment

> are happy to hand over our childrens education to

> private companys who seem above the law. I have

> spoken with teachers who are working in schools,

> (now academies), who are extremely unhappy with

> how they are being treated. My childrens school

> was put into special meausures by Ofsted,

> regardless of not fitting the criteria. the

> governing body was sacked enabling them to

> continue there plans for an academy whilst taking

> away the votes from the people who were elected to

> represent us. It is crooked through and through.


Hear hear

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...