New Secondary schools for Richmond!

[BayJay]

Richmond Council recently published a White Paper outlining plans for Secondary education in the borough (cabnet.richmond.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=23719). They want new 6th forms in every school, and would need to decrease current Yr7 intakes to accomodate that. To offset those decreases they are talking about creating two new secondary schools. One of those new schools would be a Roman Catholic school.

The Roman Catholic community in the borough are currently disadvantaged by the "link" system (www.st-marys.richmond.sch.uk/Newsletter%20Link%20letter%20for%202011%20links%20(2).pdf). Because the Catholic primaries are not linked to any secondaries in the borough, their children tend to go to a combination of out-of-borough Catholic secondaries (which are mostly rated as Outstanding), grammar schools and private schools, though some of the girls do go to Waldegrave, which is not part of the link system. Note that there is no reason, in principle, why the Catholic Secondaries couldn't be linked to local community schools, but because many of their children have other options, they simply don't meet the "25% rule" required to form a link. (See an example set of transfer figures at www.st-james.richmond.sch.uk/Admin/Uploads/Docs/StJamesSchool_Parents_NewsLetter_270910.pdf).

This raises several questions in my mind:

1. Does the problem necessarily need to be solved by providing a Catholic Secondary, or are there alternative solutions that would benefit the community as a whole (e.g. reforming the link system)?
2. Does the majority of the Catholic community specifically want to be educated separately from the rest of us, or is it the case that, like everyone else, they simply want an outstanding education for their children, and find that the Catholic route is often the best way of achieving that?
3. If Catholics had more options for transferring to outstanding community schools locally (as many already do, to Waldegrave), would they choose those options over travelling to a single-faith school in a neighbouring borough?
4. I accept that there will always be very religious people who want to segregate themselves, but would I be right in asserting that there are also large numbers of Catholics who would be happy to attend community schools, provided that gave them the same level of academic excellence that can be found in many Catholic options?
5. If a new Catholic secondary school is created, it is likely to have an entrance policy that requires a priest's reference (as per the majority of existing Catholic schools). How do people feel about that?
6. If a state-funded Catholic School is created in the borough, would non-Catholic parents also like the option of sending their children there, provided they weren't barred by the admission system?

I'd be interested to hear your opinions!

Mir4, that's a lot to answer in the time I have right now, so I'll come back to it a bit later. However, just picking up on a few of your points:

• Firstly, I get the impression you have partly read this thread and partly read the other thread, but have joined the debate late and not followed it from the start. That's fine, but I would urge anyone in that position to please read through all the posts (I realise there's a lot). That could save a lot of repetition, as many of these issues have been covered before.

• Regarding my own children being at a CofE VA school I suggest you look at the arguments I have made extensively in both threads for faith schools being inclusive, in line with the position of the Accord Coalition. Personally I would have no problem with a Catholic school that had an inclusive admissions policy (I went to one myself!) and have yet to see a substantial defence of the Catholic Education Service's policies on that. The council has not considered the option of a Faith Academy, and I think that option should be discussed seriously with the Diocese of Westminster. An inclusive Catholic school would satisfy the wording of both petitions, and many (but not all) of the supporters on both sides.

• I certainly haven't suggested that the majority of Catholics support RISC (and if you flag where you've picked that up from I'll be happy to look at it to see why you may have got that impression). I know several local Catholic families, and some of them are supporting RISC. Some of them are also supporting the Catholic petition.

Mir4
"Bay Jay your wording implies that majority of Catholics support your campaign. Over 2 thousand people on the 'Catholic schools for richmond' would beg to differ"
I'm pretty sure that BayJay has never implied such a thing, she has simply stated that RISC includes a number of Catholics, alongside people of other faiths and none. I'm wondering why you feel the need to throw unsubstantiated slurs at someone in order to make your case?
And further to that, you are not able either to construe that over 2 thousand people signing the "Catholic Schools(sic) for Richmond" petition means that the majority of local Catholics are actually in favour of it. I've actually got no idea what result a poll would give, as I know many Catholics who fall on both sides of the argument.

Bay Jay once again you are making assumptions about the wider community and specifically the Catholic community. How can an 'inclusive' school satisfy both sides when it still exludes the majority??? Only half of the Catholic children will get places as only half the spaces would be available to them that are needed and the majority of non catholic children are excluded as they live outside of Twickenham? This sounds like a very 'exclusive' not 'inclusive' campaign to me and one that will not benefit at all the majority of tax paying parents on both sides of the debate.

Mir4, we have different definitions of inclusivity. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

I'm out at DS2's swimming lesson at the mo but will reply to some of your earlier points when I get back home in an hour or so.

I find anyone trying to claim that a school restricted to one particular minority religion is inclusive is bizarre in the extreme.

You do not need a catholic schol to be a practising catholic. You are not prevented from practicing your religion by going to a non-catholic school.

My son was born Muslim, how far are you going to take your version of inclusivity? Is he prevented from being a muslim because there are no muslim schools in Richmond borough

Religious education is a nice to have not a need to have.

When the council have succesfully sorted the seconary places for all childrne in the borough of any religion I would have no problem with spending whatever money they have left in assessing whether they can accomodate particular religious wishes in education. To prioritise it is just wrong.

Right, Mir4, I'm back, so here goes:

First some background. I started this thread (and the other) because I think its important that people know what's going on with regard to their local schools. I'm not sure if RISC existed at that time, but the council's Education White Paper had just been published and I was aware that it contained lots of significant proposals. I'm the sort of person who reads the local newspaper and the council website, and tries to research the facts behind issues so that I can judge things objectively. Where possible I like to point people to those same sources of information so that they can make their own judgement. Sometimes they will come to the same conclusions as me, and sometimes they won't, but so long as they have taken the time to look at the facts, then that's fine with me. I have come to the conclusion that I support RISC. Others support them for different reasons to me, and others don't support them at all.

Note that while I support RISC, I don't speak for them, and I'm not on their organising committee.

I suggest you contact RISC directly if you want to know more about Jeremy Rodell. You are making claims about him that I personally don't agree with, but other people can make up their own minds. Here are some facts:

• This is his LinkedIn profile.

• He is chairman of the South West London Humanist Group.

• As part of that group he took part in the local Protest the Pope demonstration, which claims to be against the pope's state visit, rather than against the pope himself. Perhaps you could contact him to find out his personal views on the Pope, but I recommend that you don't jump to the conclusion that taking part in that demo makes him anti-Catholic, as many groups took part in it for a variety of reasons.

As RISC supporters come from all sections of the community they will not agree on everything. However, they are united on the wording of the RISC petition.

Mudslinging at individuals is a bit too Daily Mail for my tastes so I try not to do it.

p.s. Another thing I try not to do is rant, so sorry if I did a bit in that last post.

Your links have been very informative BayJay - thanks.

I need to make a correction to my last post. I wrongly assumed that because SW London Humanists were listed as supporters of the Protest the Pope campaign that Jeremy Rodell himself was part of the local demo. I should have been more careful . I have been asked to post the following clarification:

"Contrary to the post above, Jeremy Rodell was not a member of the Protest the Pope campaign and did not participate in any of its demonstrations. He did speak at a public meeting organised by the campaign, which was attended by many Catholics and others. But his speech was purely about the proposed Catholic school, and not about the Pope's visit. He's also a member of Richmond Inter Faith Forum and a strong believer in mutual understanding and tolerance between those of differeing religions and beliefs - including the non-religious. But he's opposed to members of one belief group being given privileges over others.

RISC is in any case not a humanist campaign. It's supporters include fair-minded Catholics , Anglicans and many others. Its aim is simply to ensure that no new school in the borough, whether it's run by the church or anyone else, is allowed to refuse a place to a child simply because of the religion or beliefs of their parents. It's a basic issue of fairness."

I suggest any more discussion re individual supporters or organisers of the campaign is directed to them directly, rather than via Mumsnet, so that they can be in a position to answer their critics directly.

Hi Mir4,

Thanks for your comments. Do you have any more details about the funds the Catholic church are putting into the new school? It would be intersting to know how much and when?

Bay Jay I am just trying to understand this situation and what is motivating this campaign, making it clear for everyone reading (including myself) I have to say though I am confused that somebody stating they are not on the the RISC campaign group committee and do not speak for them can produce a statement such as this that appears to come directly from the campaign committee . If this is not the case then please state who is 'asking' you to post this statement so that there can be no confusion.

To be honest whereas I am very pleased to hear that Mr.Rodell was not part of the Papal campaign I still have not been convinced of his personal reasons for starting the current campaign for any other reason than a humanist agenda which according to the SW Humanist website seeks "An end to the proliferation of maintained faith schools"ie surely an end to the schools that both of our children go to.

However this aside and taking into consideration the statement made by your group I still think there are some serious questions to be answered here :-
1)how is this petition for the good of the borough? .
A non Catholic school or an academy with 50/50 admissions would mean that only those living on the doorstep of the school would benefit (ie Twick town centre).This would still leave a large number of Catholic children (children of tax payers) displaced out of borough. A VA Catholic school would ensure representation from all the communities from across the borough and allows all children the right to be schooled in their home borough.

2)How does a school like this actually benefit the children of local communities (outside of Twickenham) such as those living in Whitton, Barnes, Kew, Richmond, Mortlake, parts of St.Margarets, East sheen, North Sheen who on distance would not gain access to this school etc?

3)If there is no percieved benefit for children outside of Twickenham how can it be beneficial to turn other communities against each other by campaigning across the borough for a scheme which only benefits Twickenham children ? Twickenham children who already have 2 of the best borough schools on their doorstep ie Orleans and Waldegrave

4)How would it actually affect funding of improvements at schools across the borough if the contributions from the church (several million)are taken out of the equation and the borough has to find extra money out of its tight budget? Surely this is going to have a detrimental affect on the continued improvement of our academies which are the local schools for so many of our communities.

5)How can a lack of capacity be an issue for our community schools and a reason for not having a Catholic school to offer continuity in education to over 200 Catholic children? Infact 25% of the overall available spaces are taken up by out of borough students. This is particularly apparent in the 3 academies and Greycourt. Greycourt school had a wacking 52% of places offered to out of borough students this year, Richmond park academy 42% out of borough places, Twickenham academy 31% and Hampton academy 23% . Infact across the borough 415 places out of 1626 places across the borough were offered to out of borough students, so capacity is there. The real issue seems to be for quality not quantity and providing yet another community school in an area so close to Orleans is surely only going to take funds away from the academies. An extra 7 million will have to be found by taxpayers to benefit a very small area of the population who will have access to this school, not the 90% of the children in the rest of the Richmond borough.

As parents we all want the best for our children here and I am still to be convinced that the 'Richmond Inclusive school campaign' is actually as inclusive as its name implies here.

This is Alice in Wonderland logic. I'm retiring from this thread to lay a wet towel over my forehead.

Mir 4, thanks for telling us your views. We have very different perspectives on this and I don't want to be drawn into qualitative arguments such as "how is RISC good for the borough?". People will need to form their own judgement on that.

I do think it would be helpful if you're going to quote statistics and make claims about finance to provide links to your sources (preferably primary sources, rather than secondary sources). If you scroll to the bottom of the page where you post your message it tells you how to embed a link so it needn't be obtrusive.

Here's something people might be interested in looking at. The RISC website now has copies of the applications made by the Archdiocese of Westminster to the Secretary of State Michael Gove, under section 10 of the Education Act, for permission to create a Voluntary Aided Secondary School and Primary School on the Clifden site.

I have been reading and following this thread with interest over the last few days and have been trying to look at all the information and facts of this current situation. i must say that Goodnessme and Mir4 have made some completely valid points, with regards to the 8 local secondary schools, only one of which is a faith school. The facts are that these schools are under-subscribed by in-borough children by a substantial amount. Therefore, these schools are having to fill up their places with out of borough children. Also, three of the schools are not up to capacity!
If Richmond council put into these schools the millions of pounds of tax payers money they would not be having to put into the Clifden Rd school (which would be put in by the church), then surely, this would help raise standards in ALL schools, which would help ALL children of Richmond Borough. Whereas, if the Clifden Rd school became another community school, then the council would not be able to help to improve existing schools, but only provided a school for children who live locally to the Twickenham site only!!
So as Mir4 says, this school would not benefit the 90% of Richmond children, as the RISC states!!
There would still be the problem of the 220+ Catholic children, who will have to travel out of borough everyday of their school lives, whereas, no Richmond Borough parent of children who go to community schools, ever have to see their children travel out of borough! (unless they choose to go private)
Sorry, but i agree with Goodnessme and Mir4 - its almost a no brainer - improve and raise the standards of our schools we have, why leave them to stay the same? Capacity is there!

I'm just bemused at the insinuation that we should refuse children entry to our lovely Richmond schools (that just so happen to be on Borough boundaries) because of their audacity to not live in RUT...

But I suppose that's the premise of the whole Catholic Secondary School campaign. This bizarre idea that a school can't be local if it isn't in the same Borough. It's as if we Catholics have suddenly concluded that our community identity is defined by arbitrary Borough boundaries rather than by parish and diocese.

Priviet - do you have any more information on the "millions of pounds" that the church is going to be saving Richmond Council?

LittleMrsMuppet....NO-ONE is insinuating that we should refuse out of borough children a place at a RUT school, but surely aren't the RISC campaign talking completely about Richmond borough children?? and that they feel there is no capacity for our children?

thanks for your post bay jay yes we will have to agree to differ on this one. However I do think it is extremly important that the points I have raised are answered by those advocating the 'Richmond inclusive schools campaign' as they are very valid points.

You have also I noticed not answered my question about who has asked you to post statements on this site? Please clarify this as I think it is really important to avoid miss interpretiation.

Little Miss Muffet I'm afraid you miss my point entirely! No prob with having out of borough students but def a prob with the insinuation that our schools are bursting to the extent that a new school must be made available for central Twickenham students only as opposed to Catholic students from right across the borough.Clearly capacity is very much there but the places are not being taken up by residents hence going to a big proportion of out of borough children which indicates a dissatisfaction with the schools rather than a lack of capacity

Mir4 and Priviet, your quantitative argument re secondary school places is the one being used by the council too. However, they have not yet published the calculations behind the logic, so we don't yet know if they're robust. We also don't know if they have missed out key factors, such as increased popularity of the academies from out-of-borough families as they improve. Lets hope they do that soon.

For many people, no matter how robust the quantitative argument, it still wouldn't outweigh the basic principle of not discriminating against people on grounds of religion.

The financial argument is also a strong one, but again it won't sway people who see this as a fairness issue.

Priviet - please can I refer you to point 5 in Mir4's post?

The premise of the RISC campaign is that although there is currently capacity for Richmond children, there potentially won't be in a few years' time. Capacity cannot automatically be claimed from "out of borough" children, since many of those "out of borough" children will actually live closer to the school in question than those "in borough" who need places.

Mir4 you asked: "You have also I noticed not answered my question about who has asked you to post statements on this site? Please clarify this as I think it is really important to avoid miss interpretiation."

The answer is that I contacted Jeremy Rodell myself to ask him to check what I had posted about him. I thought that was the courteous thing to do. Perhaps if you want to know any more about him you could contact him yourself too.

BayJay - interesting document from the Council that you linked to. Clearly you are closely liaising with God himself, as it is not due to be written until four days' from now .

Of more interest to me was that the council has concluded that the increase in the primary population won't translate to an increase in the secondary population.

I quote "it may take time for the positive changes at the
three academies to translate into oversubscription in secondary
schools. For that reason, it is unlikely that the increased demand in the
primary sector will lead to additional secondary school places being
required until beyond 2016 at the earliest, if at all."

Effectively, what they are saying is that although the primary school population has gone up, they don't anticipate that the secondary population will. Where are all these children going to be heading to then? Presumably the council expects them to either move house or to go private. Why is that seen as acceptable? And more significantly, why are children of parents who follow this course of action seen as a lower priority to those children sent to Catholic schools over the Borough boundaries?

Bay Jay you are stll not answering my question?

Surely too the councils logic is based on the facts that they actaully have in their hands. Do you have facts that contradict theirs?

It is missleading for the RISC campaign to state in their leaflets (in the very first bullet point) "Rising pupil numbes mean Richmond needs more secondary schools" if these facts are not 'robust' as you would suggest

You mention religious discrimination however is it not then discriminating against our Catholic children to continue the current situation where they are having to go out of borough. This is the group identified by the borough who are under represented in our secondary schools so how therefore is it innapropriate that given there is adequate provision for non catholic children these children cannot be allocated an appropriate catholic school to meet to meet these needs.

Surely this campaign therefore is stirring up religious intolerance in our communities throughout the borough under the premise that catholics are taking places away from the rest of the community?

LittleMrsMuppet ...maybe we are interpreting point 5 differently? i am reading it that it shows there is an obvious under-subscription to our community schools and especially the academies. With the £7 million pound the council will be saving, they can improve these schools dramatically and therefore, as demand rises, the places will be there for all Richmond children, not just children from a small catchment area in Twickenham for one school!