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!

ChrisSquire - Its responses like yours that put Catholics off attempting to enter these debates. Mocking our beliefs is offensive and small minded. Sadly however not unique!

The fact of the matter is that our borough provides funding for six Catholic primaries and if the opportunity arises for our council to provide a continuation of this schooling they should.

Spaces exist for children in 3 academies across the borough. Why spend money creating spaces when spaces already exist?

BayJay- Interesting research there. Nice to know some people can argue the other side without having to enter into playground retorts.

H2ohno, I think that the solution to this row will come down to numbers in the end. You are right that there is space in the Academies at the moment, but they will soon fill up. Unfortunately the council have not published their projected figures for secondary school places, and keep changing the story. They need to publish a full forecast so that it can be properly scrutinised ahead of any decisions on new schools.

Whilst I can accept that Chris Squire used a mocking tone that was perhaps unhelpful, I can't see how you can assert he was mocking your Catholic beliefs. He was challenging the assertion that a conveniently located Catholic school was a "right" and a necessity to ensure a Catholic child's "special spiritual needs". As I have already pointed out, parents in your part of the Borough do already have realistic Catholic options even if they'd rather not use one of them. I simply don't buy into the argument that St Paul's is too complicated to get too.

On the subject of numbers, I have done a quick tally of the numbers in Richmond church primary (or junior) schools.

RC = 270
CofE = 600
As you can see, there are more than twice as many children in Church of England primaries as RC ones. Those 600 children get to fight over a paltry 70 foundation places at Christ's if they want their spiritual needs supported at Secondary school. Also, as far as I'm aware there are aren't out of borough Church of England options either. (Although I'm prepared to stand corrected if anyone knows if there are some!)

LittleMissMuffet I've looked at the comparison between CE and RC schools too. When I checked out the DfE Compare Schools website it didn't look like there was much choice (or even less choice than for RCs). But there are a couple of differences: (a) the CE primaries are often more inclusive so it's possible that only 50% applied on faith grounds and (b) no one is clamouring for a new CE school (although I lost track of what happened to the proposal for the North Kingston one).

I don't blame Catholics for wanting what it appears the council is offering them - it's like a carrot being dangled in front of them. But the government and council MUST give some very convincing and objective evidence why it should be a VA school rather than a faith academy.

My criticism is of the council for the lack of consultation, transparency or respect for alternative views.

LittleMrsMuppet I mean!

I'm a bit confused about what exactly ChrisSquires said that mocked cathoics. He thinks your arguments for special consideration are "tosh".

Like muminlondon I am horrified by the council readiness to go ahead with this without proper consultation and horrifed by the catholic chruches readiness to approach a new school with an exclusive admissions policy.

I have been to both CofE and catholic schools and neither discriminated against anyone. The religious element was in the philosophy of the school, and the curiculum of the RE. Anyone who wanted that approach, regardless of their religion were welcomed.

Allowing any new school to become a VA school when the councils stated policy is for all secondaries to convert to academies smells to high heaven and reflects badly both on teh councillors who have been party to it and the ethos of the catholic church that thinks this is the way forward for catholic education.

muminlondon - I entirely agree that a good number of attendees of CofE schools won't be practicing Christians as their admissions policies are more open. But I still imagine that enough of them come from families that would choose a church school for secondary if one was on offer.

The CofE bid for the North Kingston school was unsuccessful, btw. I'm not sure of the exact details, but the result was that a competing bid for a secular school was considered more desirable for the community.

Unfortunately, I fear that the idea of a Catholic academy is a non starter as then the Diocese of Westminster probably won't throw in a bean. And without any extra cash, Richmond council is back to the drawing board.

LittleMrsMuppet, here are the details of the rejected CofE school bid in North Kingston. In that case there was a competition between two providers, and the schools adjudicator made the decision in favour of a community school. In any case, they have now had funding for the new school rejected.

saw this debate on secondary school places . pls check this twickenhamlibdems.co.uk/en/article/2011/524386/secondary-school-places-hodgins-dodges-the-questions-again

Thanks richst.

The doc gives Lib Dem Education Spokesman Cllr Eady's forecast for secondary school places over the next 5 years. In summary he concludes that there will be a shortfall of 169 secondary school places by 2016, and that the Clifden site will be needed to accomodate those.

The Conservatives have so far not published any detailed forecasts for comparison.

Thanks for those Kingston links. Kingston obviously has the same pressure on places as Richmond.

But what of the application for an RC primary on the same Clifden site? That was a sneaky move and no mention in any press release (anyone?). With 11 (12?) bulge classes taking up space in portakabins all around the borough and school halls crammed to the gills, what sort of game are they playing here?

Bayjay: you write: ? . . Nevertheless there is a strong tradition of Faith Schools in this country, for historical reasons . .?

How much do you know about this? The present uneasy balance between community and faith schools arises from a series of compromises between the CofE and the State, motivated in large part by the long struggle of the Nonconformists to free themselves from taxation [via tithes] to pay for a church and cleric they despised and a school they didn?t wish their children to attend by agreeing instead to be taxed to pay for secular schools. My party [now the Lib Dems], strongly rooted in the Nonconformists but now mainly atheistic retains the tradition of anti-clericalism; the CofE has historically been seen as the Tory Party at prayer but the Tories now claim to include everybody. The Catholics have mostly been on the side lines but have achieved equal status with the CofE.

In the present secular age no-one can remember what these past quarrels were about but they do remember what side their family is/were on. As long as the status quo is unaltered we all get along quite happily but a proposal that we should pay taxes so as to be able to give the last remaining site in the borough for a new school to the one group who intend to exclude everyone else is bound to upset everyone else, as it as done.

A Google search on: "Human Rights Act 1998" site:amnesty.org education religion pluralistic confirms that this quote is not to be found on the Amnesty website and that they haven?t digitised that issue of their magazine.

Thanks for the historical perspective ChrisSquire. I know there's a lot of baggage that goes with this whole issue, but I think that is something that is best kept out of the current debate, other than to see it as a reason to respect other people's strongly held opinions. If everyone bunkers down in their 'camps' we won't get anywhere. Overcoming historical grievances is a gradual process, and everyone needs to tread carefully.

Muminlondon, re your question "But what of the application for an RC primary on the same Clifden site?" it was actually mentioned in the original Council press release about the Clifden Rd purchase. However, it wasn't clear at that time whether that was also intended to be a VA school, and it got a bit forgotten amongst the debate over the secondary school.

Reception places in central Twickenham are at a premium at the moment, and anyone who doesn't go to church struggles to find a place. I personally know of 2 families in central Twickenham who weren't originally offered any Reception place at all. After a long wait, one of them was offered a place in Kew, and I never heard whether the other family eventually got an offer. However, both families ultimately went private (they were lucky to be able to afford to do that, but would rather have had a state place). It is that sort of frustration that is driving support for the RISC in the Twickenham area. Even those who do go to church often don't feel comfortable about whether they're doing it for the 'right' reasons, and resent having to queue up to sign registers to prove their attendance frequency. However, that topic was covered quite extensively in the other thread recently so I won't repeat it all here.

Bayjay, I read that press release and understood that there would be a community primary school. Some schools have had to take extra pupils on top of the bulge classes they are already taking.

A press release from Cllr Stephen Knight: [Oct 14] Richmond?s Liberal Democrats have called an extraordinary council meeting to press for consultation with parents before the council takes a decision on a new catholic secondary school on the Clifden Road site in Twickenham. The resolution to be debated at the meeting will be:

?This council resolves to consult all parents of children at the borough?s maintained primary schools about the type of school places to be provided on the Clifden Road site, with options to include a new community school or a new Roman Catholic School. In the light of the results of this consultation, the Cabinet should recommend to full council the type of school to be provided on the site.?

Cllr Stephen Knight, Leader of the Liberal Democrats on Richmond Council, said: ?The Council has yet to take any formal decision as to what type of school places should be provided on the newly acquired Clifden Road site in Twickenham. However the Leader of the Council has apparently - without authorisation, consultation or scrutiny - already offered a 125 year lease of the site, for a peppercorn rent, to the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has already formally applied to the Secretary of State for permission to establish a new catholic school on the site.

Local taxpayers have contributed a very large sum to the purchase of this site and deserve a say over its future use. Before this proposal goes any further, there needs to be full and open consultation with parents and the public, followed by a transparent and open decision making process to determine what type of school should be provided. Our resolution aims to force the council to follow a proper process.?

Should be a lively meeting!

Thank you Chris - what is the composition of the extraordinary council meeting and when will it be held.

All councillors; dated not yet fixed.

For info, here is a link to the Lib Dem's Press Release referred to above. The resolution that will be debated is:

"This council resolves to consult all parents of children at the borough's maintained primary schools about the type of school places to be provided on the Clifden Road site, with options to include a new community school or a new Roman Catholic School. In the light of the results of this consultation, the Cabinet should recommend to full council the type of school to be provided on the site."

BayJay I have just noticed this on Twitter Press release:Surprising turn of events in a heated meeting - Richmond Council denies offering site 4 Catholic church www.richmondinclusiveschools.org.uk/files/?folder_id=6143985

Sorry did not convert the links but here is the text of the press release

RICHMOND COUNCIL DENIES OFFERING SITE FOR CATHOLIC SCHOOL

The controversy in the London Borough of Richmond about the plan for a new Catholic secondary school took a surprising turn last night when the Council denied that any decision had been taken to offer the proposed site to the Catholic church.
The Catholic Diocese of Westminster has recently made an application to the Secretary of State for Education for consent to publish proposals for both a secondary and a primary school on the site. The application says that ?The Council approached the Diocese of Westminster with the offer of the school site?. But senior Council representatives said they were not answerable for statements made by the Diocese.
The denial was given in a heated meeting of the Council?s Education Scrutiny Committee on 17 Oct, in response to a legally-based challenge from Richmond Inclusive Schools Campaign spokesman, Jeremy Rodell, that the Council had acted unconstitutionally. He said they should not have made the offer to the church without first taking an official decision to select that option rather than follow the normal process for a new school, which is to hold a competition. And a major decision like that would require consultation giving all the available options. None of that had happened.
Nick Whitfield, the Director of Education, explained that the Council?s contract to buy the site depended on a number of conditions that the current owners, Richmond Adult and Community College, needed to meet before the purchase could be completed. And these were outside the Council?s control. He and Councillor Hodgins claimed that no decision on what to do with the site could therefore be made, so no offer had been made to the church.
The Committee agreed to minute the fact that there was disagreement between its members on whether or not a key decision had actually been taken.

watching with interest what follows

This is a press release from RISC. It is true and surprising that not only has there been no decision by Council or its Cabinet to offer the site, there has been no discussion within the Conservative Group of councillors either. The Liberal Democrat councillors decide their policies by debating and voting on them at Group meetings but the Conservative simply wait to be told by their leaders what to support. So their private opinions on the matter are unknown.

This means that the forthcoming extraordinary council meeting will be the first chance Tory councillors have had to debate the pros and cons of giving the site to the Catholics.The backbench cllrs for T Riverside (Susan Chappell and Scott Naylor) and South T (David Marlow and David Porter) will be expected to speak and declare their positions. One can imagine they would much prefer to remain inert and invisible, as they have been up to now. Residents of these wards should contact these cllrs before the meeting and pester them to say where they stand on this matter.

I did email David marlow- will cut and paste his response but implied to me that this was a done deal and he supported it (first part of statement is debatable given they are discussing it).

Can't copy on phone but Marlowe response was both parties have supported idea in principle as there are a number of catholic primaries and no secondary in borough ad also Richmond is only London borough without a catholic secondary. Counsellors head and porter didnt reply .