Jump to content

Recommended Posts

One of my children has just been offered a place in the reception intake at The Villa (Camberwell) for next year. They have asked me to accept or decline by the end of the month, which is before assessments at the Dulwich Schools even take place.

Before I actually knew anything at all about schooling round here (ie before we applied for this our first child to go anywhere) I was very attracted to the idea of getting the kids into a school where they can stay put until 18, and choosing between schools basically by looking at their exit data for 18+ and working backwards from there. But then I toured The Villa, absolutely loved it and, among other things, became really sold on the idea of NOT making a long term committment to one place before my child has even learned to write. And so The Villa become my first choice. I am thinking of accepting and withdrawing our applications for the Dulwich Schools immediately.

Are there any parents out there who get the logic of this? And are there any Villa parents who can reassure me that I am not letting my heart rule my head, and that The Villa truly is as exceptional as I think it may be.

WMx

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/26904-the-villa/
Share on other sites

Dear WM,


I can't comment on the Villa at all I'm afraid, but as I understand it, the benefit of being in a school that does not go all the way through to 18, is that at the appropriate age, be it 7+, 10+,11+ or 13+ ( the various different entry points for prep and senior schools ) is that you can make a much more reasoned assessment of the type of school that is going to be right for your child. Which, as you rightly point out, you have very little idea about when they can't even read or write. For example, I moved my son at 10+ as he was ready for a bigger academic ( and sporting ) challenge than his twin sister. She appears to be a much later developer and her now emerging skills are more art and drama and she would not thrive in a hot house academic environment. Both these characteristics have only begun to appear in the last couple of years ( they are 11 now ). I have also decided to go down the single sex route rather than co -ed, but again, I would have not had any idea about that at the start of their education and had just automatically assumed that it would be co-ed.

As other threads have suggested on similar topics, every child is different in terms of their developmental ability . At the end of the day, you will have a gut feel about what suits your child and your family best.

SJx

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/26904-the-villa/#findComment-594483
Share on other sites

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

    • Anyone got any feedback on Transgender Awareness Week over the last week? I don't. And neither has my wife. And neither have my sisters. And neither has my mum, nor my daughter   x
    • It's an estate that they have been gifted. They may choose to earn a living from it, or to sell all, or part of it. In many cases, the land will only have been purchased as a way to avoid tax (as is the case for people like Clarkson, Dyson and other individuals with significant land holdings) and has little to do with farming at all. The idea that if I give you land worth £3m + tomorrow Rocks, it's not an massive windfall, but simply a necessary tool that you need to earn a living is silly. It's no different from someone inheriting any other estate where they would usually be required to pay 40% tax and settle up immediately.  If you're opposed to any tax on those inheriting multi-million pound estates - I would be interested in who you would like to place a greater tax burden upon? Or do you simply think we should watch public services collapse even further.
    • Because it's only a windfall if they sell it - until that time it is an asset - and in this case a working asset but, as far a the government is concerned a taxable asset. The farm is the tool that they use to earn a living - a living that they will be taxed on in the same way a nurse is - it's just to do their job they are now expected to pay extra tax for the privilege - just because the farm was passed to them. Or are you advocating nurses pay tax on the tools they are provided to do their job too? 😉  Now, if they sell the farm then yes, they should pay inheritance tax in the same way people who are left items of value from relatives are because they have realised the value and taken the asset as cash.  Our farming industry is built upon family business - generations of farmers from the same families working the land and this is an ideological attack and, like so many of Labour's policies, is aimed at a few rich farmers/farm owners (insert pensioners on Fuel Duty), but creates collateral damage for a whole load of other farmers who aren't rich (insert 50,000 pensioners now struggling in relative poverty due to Winter Fuel) and will have to sell land to fund it because, well, they are farmers who don't earn much at all doing a very tough job - the average wage of someone in agriculture is, according to the BBC around £500 a week and the national average is £671. Do you see the point now and why so many farmers are upset about this? It's another tax the many to get to the few. Maybe farmers should wear Donkey jackets rather than Barbour's and the government may look on them a little more favourably.... Some good background from the BBC on why farmers are fighting so hard. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62jdz61j3yo
    • Is this in Alpine Dry Cleaners?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...