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!

LittleMrsMuppet , the doc is part of the agenda for Monday's Education & Children's Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting. The agendas are always published a week before the meeting.

Mir4, when you say "Bay Jay you are stll not answering my question?" I don't know which question you mean. Sorry, there's a lot of cross posting going on.

BayJay the application for setting up a new primary school is interesting. In particular point "6". It makes me think of the phrase "lies, damned lies and statistics". Surely these figures are utterly meaningless in London where applicants can put up to 6 choices? How do they know that many of these applicants didn't have the school down as a grudging choice number 6 on the thinking that at least it was local? And I know that at least one of the schools on that list has had some problems filling its roll in recent years.

LittleMrsMuppet, yes I agree they're interesting, and they contain several things I don't agree with, but I'm not sure its worth going into all that here. People will have to read them and make their own mind up. Of course, the only person who's opinion really matters is Michael Gove, so it'll be interesting to see what his response is.

Right, I'm off to bed now. Night night everyone!

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

I'm with Hester - particularly the claim that the council spending (presumably as they haven't released the figures yet) tens of million of pounds on a catholic secondary school to accomodate children who would normally attend a catholic secondary out of the borough (but generally within 5 miles and in many cases closer than the proposed Catholic school) saves the council millions.

Its the kind of saving I make when I buy a handbag I don't need in the sales. Saving me a fortune. Its what we in the accountancy world call a cost. Its a technical term which I don;t have time to get into now, too busy lookng for a damp flannel.

BayJay - thanks for posting the link to the Council's scrutiny meeting and I am surprised by their statement on secondary school place. Is there any bottom up detailed calculation to support this or is it just a shift in their position to justify a story that has been changed since they published the school strategy paper in Dec 2010 and were till the purchase of the Clifden Road site in July stating ...the need for a community school. There is a detailed bottom up predection on secondary school places done by Cllr Eady twickenhamlibdems.co.uk/en/article/2011/524386/secondary-school-places-hodgins-dodges-the-questions-again
As per his estimates by 2016 we will be 169 places short, if we assume just moderate improvement in our secondary schools.
True a lot of investment and efforts have been put into the academies for the benefit for the entire community including Catholics - all of them follow an inclusive admissions policy. They are doing a great job in getting better and if we are serious about helping them succeed, we need to support their drive to increasing the 2012 admissions. A school needs a good intake from everyone in the local community to get better. It is critical to encourage the entire community to embrace our academies. Having "Divide and Rule" or discriminatory standards simply creates division in the community that we must avoid.

gmsin - Thanks for the link. I'll take a look at it later. In answer to your question, no numbers have been published to back up the qualitative statements in the report. In any case the numbers will change significantly if the Linked School Policy is removed.

Kewcumber - I love the handbag analogy . I would only extend it to say that in this case the handbag has been bought and can't be taken back to the shop. I would also perhaps liken it more to an expensive mobile phone with a 100+ year contract, and no option to upgrade the phone if your needs change in the future. If the Cathoic Church do put £7 million into this (and that figure has not been verified) then they will be purchasing complete control of the Admissions System in perpetuity.

Do you know something, BayJay? I don't think they will get complete control of the Admissions System in perpetuity. For the foreseeable future, perhaps, but times change.

I don't honestly believe that this is a debate that our children will still be having.

LittleMrsMuppet, I hope you're right. Certainly if these amendments to the Education Bill are passed then this whole argument could simply dissolve. However, given the make-up of the House of Lords, I'm not holding my breath. I wonder which way our own Lord True will be voting! .

BayJay, I can't honestly see that amendment being passed at this present time. However, it's all about small steps. The Church of England is gradually moving to more inclusive admission at its schools; that will also put on further pressure for change. Even the Diocese of Westminster is already slowly moving its position forwards, evidenced by its push to update the selection policies at Cardinal Vaughan.

And, ultimately, I truly believe that the Church that I was brought up in and belong to will do the right thing in the end.

LittleMrsMuppet, that sounds good to me. Again, let's hope you're right.

Just for info: here is a link to today's Richmond & Twickenham Times which again has lots of letters on this issue (from pg 29).

If anyone knows Mr A. Gnostic of Whitton then perhaps they could point him towards Mumsnet so that he could read up about the admissions policies of Voluntary Aided schools . Apart from his obvious lack of knowledge on that I agree with the rest of what he has to say, i.e. that an inclusive Catholic School could be a good solution to this. If only the Catholic Church could be convinced of that we could all get on with our lives!

So lets get this straight ,at the end of the day it is fine for the rest of the borough to buy Twickenham children another very exclusive handbag paid for with the taxes of the Catholic families (who can go else where despite paying towards the lovely handbag)and from the parents of the rest of the boroughs children (non of whom will get to use the lovely bag either)?HMMMN! I have yet to be convinced that this is really good for the rest of the borough. No one still seems able to offer a constructive answer to any of my questions, for example:- How is this handbag good for the children in Whitton, Barnes, Richmond, Sheen, etc etc? when it is highly unlikely any of their communities children will benefit in securing a place at it. Worse still it is may well impact on the continues improvement of their local schools as extra money is going to have to be found? Whereas a Catholic school will have children from every local community in our borough and free up funds.

Catholics do not have "priority at all 8 Catholic secondaries" claimed to be "within 5 miles of Richmond" as is suggested in your flyer "Threat to childrens schooling in Richmond'. How could that be remotely possible when they are forced to compete for places out of borough and naturally the children of the schools borough have "priority". To make it even more difficult many schools also have links with other boroughs too .

As somebody so rightly pointed out Cardinal Vaughan has changed its admissions policy recently which has meant that children which historically went there from some of our Richmond Catholic schools can no longer get a place there unless they have a sibling. Infact I have seen children struggle to get places in a catholic school in an adjacent borough only a mile away! Being a catholic child does not give you instant access to a fantastic choice of 8 schools at all and you are hugely blessed if you can get into one.

Mir4 - I respect your views and would like to humbly make 3 points.

1. Catholic Voluntary Aided schools must always ?give priority to Catholic families." There?s no distance limitation, so the proposed school will fill completely with children of Catholics from Richmond and surplus places will be filled with children from other boroughs. If this goes ahead, the 90% of Non-Catholics will have to fight for places at one of the existing community schools, or take up places at one of the three academies with surplus places or go private. If we want the academies to attract more local children, surely we should encourage everyone, including Catholics, to embrace them. Having different standards for Catholics and other community members simply creates division.
2. As a RPA community board member, my view is that a school needs a good intake from everyone in the local community to get better. It is critical to encourage the entire community including catholics to embrace RPA. RPA will benefit if we all help them reach their target 125-140 admissions in 2012 ( it was 96 in 2011). This will need support now in 2011 from all the local primaries near RPA including the Catholic primaries St Osmunds and St Mary Magdalen's - it will require only 5-10 more pupils per school to select RPA to ensure its meets its targets. RPA will welcome whole heartedly all those who go to these Catholic primaries and do want wish to travel 2 miles to 1) Sacred Heart or 2) London Oratory both Roman Catholic State funded in Hammersmith and Fulham borough or 3) Christ's School, a Mixed Church of England comprehensive school in Richmond, where Catholic students get priority. It also offers a shorter commute for people at the North end of the Borough, compared to the potential commute to Clifden Road.
3. Why cant we have better non discriminatory solution that is a "win a win" for everybody - a Catholic school could be among the inclusive schools. Inevitably it would attract Catholic parents, but that would be fully in line with the ethos of "Choice & Diversity" in education. Giving top priority to a new VA school that 90% of the population will be unable to "choose" makes a mockery of choice and diversity for all except a small minority.

Mir4 your point about how pupils on the other side of the river will benefit.

The link policy is about to be abolished. If not with this consultation then in a few years when Grey Court, Orleans and Teddington become academies. This means that more Richmond pupils, and those Twickenham pupils not at the current link schools with Orleans, will apply to Twickenham schools and get in on proximity. Schools near Kew (e.g. Darrell) might find it harder to get into Grey Court unless places are vacated by Vineyard and Marshgate pupils having easier access to Grey Court.

Meanwhile, Grey Court will become increasingly popular but will continue to take in Kingston pupils on proximity. The law prohibits Richmond council from reserving places for Richmond children.

Meanwhile the 11 bulge classes currently filtering through the system, many in Twickenham, will need to be catered for - that's 330 children.

Meanwhile recession will drag on and the academies on the edge of the borough will become popular. So the 35-40% who go private will look to the state schools. There are 2000 primary school kids and 1500 secondary places. So that could be another 200-500 children.

We will need another inclusive school especially in Twickenham. Not to have a choice but to have the chance of a place. Then after the majority have been catered for there could be a catholic school, but at presents there are enough places in the diocese.

As the council is not planning a community school or new academy, if the only new school is not inclusive - like Christ's - it is not catering to the needs of the majority of local children.

MuminLondon sums up the situation well, I think. Here is a well informed forecast of the effect of scrapping linked schools: Abolishing the ?linked schools? system: who gains? who loses? A forecast for Orleans Park

Thanks for posting that again Chris. As it caused a few ruffled feathers last time can you confirm that a) the report has been produced by Malcolm Easy (Lib Dem education spokesperson) and b) that it isn't intended to imply that the Lib Dems are taking a position on whether the system should be dropped or not?

That should read Malcolm Eady, not Easy. Predictive texting, bah!

I certainly think the link school policy should be dropped - it discriminates against pupils in Richmond and Kew schools without a link. That's probably as much a legacy of Grey Court's dip in popularity in the early noughties as well as the building of two new primaries. But now Grey Court is popular again - if it had restricted entry to 200 pupils this year, very few would have got in on distance putting it out of reach of Richmond parents (while Kingston primaries benefit from the links). I want to find the data but I believe more 'Surrey' pupils go private than 'Middlesex' ones simply because they currently have less choice.

Another point - you can check how many schools of an RC (or CE) denomination are within a 5 mile radius on the Government's website. From where Orleans Park is there are 8 catholic schools within that radius. St Osumund's has 13, St Elizabeth's 9, etc. But it's true that within 3 miles that choice narrows to about 2 if you take each RC primary. Still about the same choice as for CE pupils.

My feeling is that the RC secondary application is based on out of date evidence. It's true that 200 pupils go out of the borough. But the situation is changing very rapidly. The RISC petition has gained as many signatures as the Catholic school petition. My beef is with the council for not listening to all the arguments and for lack of long-term planning.

No - it was NOT written by Cllr Eady, who only writes in his own name and as education spokesperson. ?A concerned resident? is someone else who is well-informed as well as concerned. The Lib Dem Group (of cllrs) have not debated this issue and, I think, have agreed only that the policy should be reviewed - as is happening.

As MuminLondon has pointed out, if/when all the secondary schools become academies (as the council intends they will) they will decide, not the council, how to select 50 % of their intake and the balance will be selected by distance.

I think you are confusing this article dated Oct 10 with this one dated Oct 07, which was indeed , as it clearly states, written by Cllr Eady as spokesperson:

?Secondary school places: Hodgins dodges the questions - AGAIN
? [Oct 07] Cllr Malcom Eady writes: CLLR Hodgins* recent (30th September) letter to the RTT again failed to answer parents' basic concerns about the future provision of secondary school places in the borough . . '

• Liberal Democrat Education Spokesperson ** Council cabinet member for education?

It was sent to the RTT for publication but they haven?t used it yet.

I agree with you muminlondon. I'm also curious as to how the Linked School Consultation is going to be evaluated. How will they weight strength-of-numbers against strength-of-argument? For example, if 500 people say "the system should stay because I benefit", and 100 say "the system should go because it is unfair on several counts", then which way will the consultation swing?

The same question could be applied to any other type of consultation. I'm off to look at the council website to see if they have any guidance on that.

ChrisSquire, thanks for clarifying that. For info, it was your post at [Tue 11-Oct-11 10:21:30] that ruffled feathers, so I think it was the same doc. However, I think the problem was that it was misinterpreted as advocating that the links should stay.

Of course, if the links go it will have adverse consequences for some schools. My own children's school is linked to Orleans Park, and I know there are a lot of connections between the two schools (especially in their languages curriculum). However, I don't think that outweighs the basic fairness issue, so I certainly will be advocating a change when the consultation starts.

Good that academies would need to reserve at least 50% of places on proximity. But does that mean they could retain links for the other 50%? Or convert to faith academies? Or select on ability in music/maths/languages? Or have a two-box catchment area like Waldegrave?

I was surprised to see Tiffin boys school is a CE converter academy - I thought it was a non-denomination grammar. Tiffin Girls isn't CE but maybe the two schools aren't linked any more.

ChrisSquire, what is your reference for "when all the secondary schools become academies ... they will decide ... how to select 50 % of their intake and the balance will be selected by distance"?

According to these guidelines schools that convert to academy status can keep their existing admission policies.

Brand new faith academies (i.e. ones that don't replace existing schools) have to have 50% open admissions.

BayJay: thanks for the double clarification. I had indeed forgotten my Tuesday post.
I do not know what the author Concerned Resident?s personal opinion is as they did not express it in the email sending me the article. It asserts that scrapping links would: reduce the social mix; shrink the catchment area; harm local school collaboration & co-operation; and make St Stephen?s less attractive. These are 4 strong points in favour of keeping OS?s links.
As regards admission policy of academies - I stand corrected! This means that in a few years time families will have to contend with a mixture of admissions policies as each amends or scraps its linked school policy independently.
I looked the other day for anything re the consultation and found nothing.