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!

Two new COE faith schools with fully inclusive admissions in London.

1. North Ealing COE Secondary Academy opening in Sep 2013 with provision for 6th form schools.london.anglican.org/119/north-ealing-church-of-england-academy-necea
2. A primary school St Luke COE in Camden opened this year www.stlukesschool.org.uk/parents.html

This proves that admissions policy of faith schools can be based on community inlcusion and distance. It is fully in line with governments policy for future faith schools to be delivered through academies with the community getting share of admissions.

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 and causing the current division in our community.

Muminlondon, in answer to your question about the admission policies of converter academies, they need to follow the current admission code, as do other schools. The only difference is that they are their own admissions authority, so are independent of the council (like existing VA schools).

Selection by ability isn't allowed (only existing grammar schools that convert can do that). They can select on 'aptitude' but as that is more difficult to measure I don't think its very common. Geographically defined catchment areas are allowed (but not using borough boundaries). Linked schools are allowed so long as the mechanism for determining links can be justified).

Muminlondon, in answer to your question about the admission policies of converter academies, they need to follow the current admission code, as do other schools. The only difference is that they are their own admissions authority, so are independent of the council (like existing VA schools).

Selection by ability isn't allowed (only existing grammar schools that convert can do that). They can select on 'aptitude' but as that is more difficult to measure I don't think its very common. Geographically defined catchment areas are allowed (but not using borough boundaries). Linked schools are allowed so long as the mechanism for determining links can be justified).

Not that I know much about them, but the Richmond Free school proposal wanted to serve the whole Richmond borough albeit based in Twickenham. richmondfreeschool.org.uk/index.php/the-site. They got turned down by DfE partly because of "not enough evidence of demand for school places in Richmond", even though they used the council's own forecasts: richmondfreeschool.org.uk/index.php/school-places-in-richmond. Not sure if that group will apply again, seems the free school idea is losing momentum generally...

I'm finding the whole secondary thing more and more baffling as time goes on. The council's policy seems horribly fragmented and inconsistent, part of the cause seems that they (and the DfE) are panicking about budgets behind the scenes and that's why they want the injection of capital from the church rather than going it alone for a new inclusive school. Does anyone know if the faith academy idea is being taken seriously?

I'm assuming the reason the Government thought there wasn't enough evidence of demand was because there was so much spare capacity at the Academies. I'm also assuming that is why the council dropped its plan for a community secondary (because they concluded that they wouldn't get any money for that either). The timing seems to fit.

I haven't seen a proposed admissions policy for the Richmond Free School, but you're right that they did say that they would bus children in from around the borough. The only justification that I can imagine for that is that children of Free School Applicants may in future be allowed to have priority admissions. The implication is that if you help to set the school up then your child will get priority.

How does the £ 7m that is being quoted as the church's contribution compare to the overall market value of Clifden road deal With all the taxpayers money LBRUT is putting to buy the 4 acre prime acre site at Clifden Road are they really making a financially prudent decision ??? ? Is it not a fantastic deal for the Church if the Clifden road site is leased to them at a peppercon rate for a period of 125 years !!!

Seems to me that this is a pointless debate. Alot of the "facts" being spat out are simply untrue. This massive selection of Catholic schools in other boroughs you seem to think Richmond Catholics have is hilarious. In our primary school (Catholic) hardly any of the boys were able to get a place at a Catholic secondary, despite being practising Catholics with regular mass attendance. Girls at the moment are slightly luckier but even that was down to extra classes being taken on at Gumley. St Marks, Richard Challoner or the Oratory may be within 5 miles but admission to these schools is near impossible from many parts of our borough.

As for the fairness argument how can a school in Twickenham be fair for taxpayers in Barnes/East Sheen etc? At least a Catholic school would accept children from across the whole borough. With 6 Catholic primaries the school would not have troubles filling in its places.

I realise in the future a new secondary will be needed to support the increasing population BUT at the moment there are undersubscribed secondary schools in the borough. Until these vacancies are filled spending money on building a new secondary, is a waste of our taxes.

Welcome back h2ohno. The underprovision for boys is something that is felt by the community as a whole, mainly due to Waldegrave. I think it would be reasonable to consider a boys' school. I don't think it would be reasonable to solve the perceived problem for Cathoilc children and not for anybody else. That's my opinion. I know others disagree.

Also h2ohno, would you agree that the Catholic community could play its part in helping to fill up the Academies too?

Thank-you BayJay. Although i respect all the work and research you have currently showed on this thread, i simply do not see a need for money to be spent on a new secondary school when places still exist for Richmond children at 3 academies. Catholic children still have no local choice.

I thought the council did recognise the need for more secondary places, but not for a few years? Creating a Catholic secondary addresses an immediate need. Whether you agree with faith schools, the reality is that there are 6 Catholic primaries in the borough. It seems only right that these children have a Catholic secondary to follow on to. Christs may favour Christians but short of living super near the Queens Road you would never get in.

I acknowledge that for non Catholics this debate seems "Alice in Wonderland" like, but for those of us with a strong faith it is a very personal and sensitive matter.

Re Christs, I have heard anecdotally that the foundation category of the admissions system is routinely undersubscribed. (If anyone has data to verify that then please post a link).

Wouldn't help us Catholics anyway as its initial preference is for those worshipping at Church of England churches.

Yes, but its next preference is for a wider category of Christians which includes Catholics. If the foundation places are undersubdcribrd (anecdotal) then any practising Catholic who applies should get in, no matter where they live.

This was definitely not the case a few years ago. I knew of Catholics near Richmond Park (SW14 bit) who did not get in. Maybe it has recently changed?

Like I said, I heard it anecdotally. I don't think that sort of data is published, but a phonecall to the admissions secretary could probably confirm it either way.

Why is it a pointless debate? Sorry, but I know that I'll fight unfair admission policies to the bitter end. As much as anything it's because I believe they are undermining the work of the Church.

Obviously there isn't a massive choice of Catholic schools for all children across the Borough. There are certainly significant "catchment" holes. But it has been that way for a very long time. For example, nearly ten years a large enough number of children from Sacred Heart went to Teddington that a link was formed. And if you go much further back than that, you'll be back into the much unmissed St Edward the Confessor territory.

It's also worth remembering that there's a realistic Catholic choice for those on the west side of the Borough, in St Paul's College, Sunbury. Perhaps the Catholics here should embrace this much improving school (after it was deemed unsatisfactory by Ofsted five years ago) in the same way as they expect everyone else to embrace the Academies. There are excellent transport links to it for a start.

I really wish Richmond Catholics would admit that their desire for a new school school has far more to do with getting a good quality education than anything else. The reason people here are debating it is because this desire is identical for everyone, whatever their religious beliefs.

Sorry that should read ten years ago

Pointless in the aspect that for several of those in the RISC campaign do not understand the spiritual need for a Catholic school. This side of the argument is frequently mocked or downplayed.

If it was simply about getting a good quality education then surely Waldegrave or Teddington School would be good enough for several of us in the Strawberry Hill/Teddington/Twickenham side of the borough?

But you haven't answered why St Paul's isn't good enough for those of you where a spiritual need is foremost.

Besides, Waldegrave won't help if you have a boy. Teddington won't help if you live further into Twickenham with its rapidly shrinking catchment. Surely you accept that although the spiritual need for a Catholic school might be foremost for "several" of you, it probably wouldn't be for a significant number? And if there were sufficient high quality community places available, maybe that would free up space at Gumley, St Mark's, Gunnersbury etc for those who absolutely must have a Catholic education for their children.

Who said St Pauls wouldnt be acceptable? Their priest Father Ray, is a brilliant and inspirational man. I have no doubt that the pastoral care received there is of a high calibre. However transport to the school is not as easy as you think. Why should children have to catch 2/3 forms of transport just to get to school in the morning? Why can't we as Richmond tax payers not have a right to a Catholic secondary in our borough?

Out of curiosity, why is there such a strong campaign for creating a new school in Twickenham when Twickenham Academy is not oversubscribed? Why not put this energy into improving these so called undesirable schools?

Perhaps you should look more seriously at it. It's a 13 minute direct train from Teddington! (Or 9 mins from Fulwell/Hampton Hill). St Paul's is right next to Sunbury station.

Obviously this particular link entirely depends on living near a station, but most of the Teddington/Hampton Hill area is reasonably walkable or a very short bus journey from one. And further into Hampton it's potentially directly bus'able. In fact, it could be as easy to get to for half the kids that hope to go to this new school school as the new school itself will be.

Tbh, I'm not sure there'd be any big campaign for a new school in Twickenham if it wasn't that this Clifden site has already been purchased. Twickenham Academy isn't oversubscribed at present, but that's because of nervousness about its quality. It isn't because there aren't enough children that could (should?) go to it. Hopefully that will change, but if it does, it could very rapidly go from undersubscribed to over. There are more than enough children to do this. If it does, I wonder how easy it will be to find another site in the area?

"Why can't we as Richmond tax payers not have a right to a Catholic secondary in our borough?"

There is no right to a religious education outside of that provided by the national curriculum.

Just thought I'd restate that fact in case anyone was in any doubt.

All children have a right to a decent education. There is no other right that any group has as far as I am aware.

Please do correct me if I'm wrong.

h2ohno: Kewcumber is correct. For myself, I don?t mind paying taxes to educate the rising the generation but my hackles rise when I am asked to pay for their ?special spiritual needs?.

This is tosh. Let them attend a secular school open to all for their education and go to Sunday School for their spiritual needs as Protestants do. This what happens in France, a country with a large at least nominally Catholic population, and the United States, a much more religious country than England with a substantial Catholic population (I haven?t looked up the numbers but would guess it is a larger % than England?s).

I don?t think you realise just how offensive Catholic special pleading is to the non-Catholic majority. We live in a secular age in a mainly secular, historically Protestant, country with a large minority population who are culturally non- or anti-Christian. RCs cannot expect special treatment from the taxpayer.

This is emotive stuff, which really gets to the nuts and bolts of the issue, so lets all try to stay calm and respectful. I'd like to post a few facts, to try and help both sides understand the other's perspective.

Canon Law 793 states that:

"Catholic parents have ... the duty and the right to choose those means and institutes which, in their local circumstances, can best promote the catholic education of their children. §2 Parents have moreover the right to avail themselves of that assistance from civil society which they need to provide a catholic education for their children."

However, this is not English Law, so does not directly equate to a right to a Catholic School.

The First Protocol, Article 2 of the Human Rights Act 1998, Part 2, states that:

"No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and teaching, the state shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions."

However Amnesty International UK, in Amnesty (September - October 2000), reportedly stated:

"This article guarantees people the right to access to existing educational institutions; it does not require the government to establish or fund a particular type of education. The requirement to respect parents' convictions is intended to prevent indoctrination by the state. However schools can teach about religion and philosophy if they do so in an objective, critical, and pluralistic manner."

I say "reportedly stated" because I can't find a link to the original source to verify it, but it is widely quoted on the internet.

Nevertheless there is a strong tradition of Faith Schools in this country, for historical reasons. While people still want them, they are likely to continue (and the current and previous government have encouraged them). In my view that's acceptable, so long as they are recognised as a privelege rather than a right. People also need to recognise that in difficult economic times, priveleges are in short supply, and will cause controversy if they are handed out without consultation with the wider community.

I just wanted to add something. While Amnesty's interpretation of the Human Rights Act may not have been tested in the courts (yet) it would seem reasonable. The opposite interpretation would imply governments had a duty to provide schools of every denomination, for everyone who wanted them, whether or not they could be afforded.