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!

kewcumber - I too can't read the mind of the Council but the facts as they appear to me suggest that the best economic and educational option for the site would be the Catholic VA option. You haven't explained why the existing 3 secular and I suppose "inclusive" schools are not the right type of secular, inclusive schools (not "adequate") for those so exercised about the Catholic school option that might actually deliver something distinctive to Richmond.

The debate has moved on on this thread from : we are subsidising the Catholics and Catholics then would have more choice and Catholic schools aren't inclusive to why aren't 3 of the existing secular inclusive schools used by local parents claiming to be desirous of such schools

"All boroughs struggle to forecast future demand"
Yes, that's one reason why handing over complete control of admissions to a VA School governing body for 125 years is a bad idea. The more flexibility there is in the system, the better.

"bayjay - no I am not in Richmond borough"
Well, if you were then you would know about the 3 academies. They have a long history of underperformance. They became Academies just a year or two ago, and the council is pumping effort into turning them around. However, it will take time for confidence to improve. The one most local to Clifden (and the one I know best) is Twickenham Academy. It is currently a building site, and the children are all in portacabins. It will be at least another year before the building work is complete. Then it will start to attract more admissions. However, it is a Kunskapsskolan Academy. That ethos has the potential to be very attractive to some, but does not appeal to everybody and will need to prove itself. In Sweden it is a specialist type of school that some parents actively choose, but it is not the mainstream. Here in Twickenham large numbers of families are facing the prospect that they will have no choice other than Twickenham Academy in the future, because other options are becoming closed to them for various reasons. The problem is particularly acute for boys, as they do not have an alternative to the very academically succesful Waldegrave.

I could go on, but you really need to live here to understand all the ins and outs of this.

Anyway, it's bedtime for me ....

so bayjay what is important is not its inclusivity but it being a high performing, academic school. I did suggest RISC open a free school on the site.

florist, no, the important thing is its inclusivity.

I think that all of the local schools have the potential to be high performing, including the Academies.

They can't, florist, BECAUSE THE COUNCIL WILL NOT CONSIDER ANY OPTION OTHER THAN A CATHOLIC SCHOOL, DESPITE THE WISHES OF THE LOCAL PEOPLE. Haven't you been reading the thread?

And please stop trying to bait bayjay. You may not agree with her, but she has been unfailingly courteous and helpful to all posters on this thread.

"They have a long history of underperformance" - nice touch of understatement there, Bayjay!

My debate was never about "subsidising Catholics" or denying them choice but I firmly believe that every child in the borough should be able to get one offer from a relatively local secondary school with results in line with the standards of the local primary schools.

Until that aim is met I don't beleive that we should be prioritising the establishment of a secondary school for any group which plans to have non-inclusive admissions.

If the council believes that an all inclusive secondary school is not necessary then I would like to see the data on which they based that conclusion. If (as I suspect) that an additional all-inclusive secondary is necessary and Clifden's not the right site then they shouldn't be buying Clifden.

If I want my son to have a chance of a decent secondary education at present, he will need to go out of borough. Do those of you who are Catholic believe it is fair that my son will need to travel out of borough to get a school that meets his needs (a basic comprehensive education - I'm not expecting Eton).

Why is the complaint that you need to go out of borough? Lots of us have to. It isn't a very compelling argument to me.

I have been to Catholic and CofE schools myself - at what point did catholic schooling become an old boys club that we lesser mortals would taint with our presence? It wasn't like that in the olden days.

kewcumber this should not be an us and them sort of debate - as RISC has promoted as reflected in the very early part of this thread. You seem to be saying that it would make economic sense for the council or taxpayer to find refurbishment cost for the Clifden site and that on educational grounds the new secular school would be better than the 3 academies that are apparentley not delivering what local people want. My judgement is different: that if the Church is not frightened off with all this brouhaha it makes good sense on educational and financial grounds. That the Catholic school could provide both quantity and quality of places.
Of course I sympathise with you and your own choices - the issue seems to be not the offer of the church to refurbish and run a school but rather the failure of 3 existing inclusive non faith schools already operating in the borough. What is it about these apparently improving schools which are inclusive as you desire that is not for you

no florist I'm not saying that but I'm off to bed now with no time to explain again my very simple point (although the idea of the Catholic church being "frightened off" getting a new 100% catholic secondary school because they're intimated almost amused me enough to stay up)

florist, I am a local resident who is lucky enough to live close to one of the good community secondary schools. I have no personal axe to grind in this debate. For me it is simple: an inclusive school is a better option for our borough than a school that denies access to the majority of local children. I firmly believe that children and communities do better with local schools, and I do not accept that the principle of 'a Catholic school for every borough' outweighs this.

You can continue to argue that RISC supporters are either (a) motivated by an anti-faith agenda, or (b) selfish poshos who actually just want their kids to be ok at the expense of others, but that simply is not the case for very many of us. You're also implying that wanting your child to go to an adequate school is somehow a grubby motive, but surely the same is true for Catholic parents. Some are truly motivated by a Catholic education, and would choose a Catholic school even if it didn't perform as well as alternatives, but many are gratefully falling back on their Catholic heritage to get their child into a better school. Come on, you know that's true. And I don't blame them for it one bit. Just let's be honest about it that on both sides there are people who are arguing for what they perceive as the greater good, and people who are arguing out of self-interest, and plenty who are arguing for both.

Kewcumber - I didn't say intimidated what I meant was they might conclude that the atomosphere stoked by RISC is not conducive to a Catholic school benefiting Richmond education and parents - I hope I am wrong and your are right. Night night and maybe tomorrow you will answer my question re the existing secular schools that locals are not choosing to send their kids to

hester I am far from saying that it is grubby to want a good and outstanding school for your children; on the contrary it is your responsiblity as parents. What I am asking is why the existing 3 inclusive not faith schools don't tick the box for parents localy. You see I think have polarised this debate: it should not be about secular inclusive v. Catholic non inclusive, but rather the quality of schools. Another so-called inclusive school - Catholic or otherwise - which was not providing what parents want would not serve anyone interests.

ps it is clear that RISC is supported by Accord and its national anti faith school agenda. I am not saying everyone who supports RISC agree with this but that is how they have set the terms of the debate when what we should be talking about is improving education in the existing 3 schools - why are they not performing whereas the other state schools in Richmond and where your children go are performing

Kewcumber Tue 22:44: ?I have not seen any anything published recently by the council laying out how many places are likely to be necessary in the medium term, . . ?

Have a look at this spreadsheet forecast to 2020, published today, the appendix to a paper for next Tuesday?s Scrutiny meeting.

florist, mir 4 and hampton - academies do not discriminate pupils - were set up for everyone in borough. so why cant catholics like their non catholic neighbours support them . should we all not be together in our local neighbourhood . what if muslims said they do not want to go to academies and want places at clifden road ???

"it is clear that RISC is supported by Accord and its national anti faith school agenda"

Florist, RISC is openly endorsed by Accord and its pro-inclusive faith schools agenda. Accord believes in the positive contribution that faith schools can make to our society. They just think that everyone should be able to enjoy that privelege.

"what we should be talking about is improving education in the existing 3 schools"
That is very much a parallel inititiative that many of us are already involved in. It is because we care so much about our schools that we think that putting a VA Secondary in central Twickenham is like a slap in the face to all local non-Catholics.

With respect, there is so much history and background to this that can't be appreciated unless you live locally.

"[the diocese] might conclude that the atomosphere stoked by RISC is not conducive to a Catholic school"
I hope that the strong feelings of local people on this issue might stoke some well-overdue self-reflection on their responsibilities to the wider community.

"I hope that the strong feelings of local people on this issue might stoke some well-overdue self-reflection on their responsibilities to the wider community."

Still want to argue that this argument isn't about issues with the Catholic church/Faith schools in general?

h2ohno - the argument would be there irrespective of "issues with the Catholic church/faith schools in general". However, you are quite right that this side issue is now being given a grandstand as a consequence of the Council's poor prioritising.

We wouldn't be having this debate if secondary schooling in the Borough was consistent across the board. If that were the case, a new Catholic secondary would cause only very limited animosity locally. As I've already said, I'm a Catholic myself. And I don't particularly appreciate the fact that I'm potentially going to become public enemy no.1 as a consequence of all this hoo-ha.

"Still want to argue that this argument isn't about issues with the Catholic church/Faith schools in general?"

Good morning h2ohno. It isn't specifically about the Catholic Church. It isn't about Faith Schools in general. There is a wider issue about the national admissions policy of the Catholic Education Service. Accord is campaigning on that issue, and others. However, RISC is campaigning for all new LBRuT schools to be inclusive. They are not campaigning about existing local schools, as that would require a change in legislation, and Accord is working on that anyway. It is only when new schools are created that local people really get a say on issues like this.

Please, let's not replay old arguments. I'm sure we've both get better things to do.

Just posting this link for info as it may be of interest to parents at the Hampton end of the Borough. The Reach Academy has been approved to open in neighbouring Feltham in September 2012. However, it's only a small school (2 form entry, all-through 5-18) and I can't see any information about its admission policy on its website, so if anyone knows more about that perhaps they'd like to share it with us.

LittleMissMuppet - I couldn't agree more. However i do believe that the local secondaries can/will improve as more and more local parents send their children there. Schools like Grey Court and Christs have had succesful turn arounds and i believe the same will happen to the others with time. Opening a local Catholic secondary will not get in the way of this. It will simply meet a demand that is currently not being met.

Why didn't the RISC (or equivalent) support the transformation of the old brewery in Mortlake? Genuine question.

BayJay - Good morning to you too!

I see this argument in secular political terms: a choice between Utilitarianism (?the greatest possible good of the greatest possible number?) and Fairness as applied to one particular choice only - who gets the Clifden Road site?

The Scrutiny paper Secondary School Places (Nov 21) says:

? . . The Education ?White Paper? stated that the Council ?will undertake feasibility for one, possibly two, additional secondary schools (including one Roman Catholic) in the borough?. Despite the apparently slower progress than anticipated towards oversubscription at the three sponsored academies noted above, it remains the case that the Council?s pupil forecasts in Appendix 1 indicate that a new community secondary school may be required from September 2016 . . In order to maintain flexibility, the Council is . . working with partners to secure a suitable site and accommodation for a new school . . ?

The Liberal Democrat (my party) position is that the Utilitarians should have priority on the Clifden Road site and the Catholics should be offered the second site if one can be found that the Council can afford to buy. The Conservatives say they give the Catholics priority, if Gove gives the OK, because that is the fair thing to do.

Residents will have to wait for the borough elections in May 2014 to give their verdict on whatever has happened by then: it promises to be a most interesting contest.

Here's another link that may be of interest if you're into Transcendental Meditation. I've already mentioned in this thread that the Maharishi Free School is interested in opening a school in LBRuT. Well, they now have a proposed site, in Hampton.

Thanks ChrisSquire - just posting this link for anyone who (like me) didn't know what Utilitarianism meant .

BayJay: Ask this gent! and read all about him here.

And there I was thinking that (having had a conversation with my local Lib Dem councillor prior to the last election, and asking why it was that there was no Catholic secondary school in Richmond) that the establishment of a Catholic secondary school had been a long-held priority for the Lib Dems too?

I was told that the problem was that 'there was no site available'. Now there is a site but again, we are told that we are not valued and can't have it?

If 'majority rule' always wins, the unfairness of so many areas of society would never be tackled would it? Think about other areas where minorities have had to fight for the same rights as the majority.

As I have said before, the bottom line is that if RISC get there way, this school will just give another 'choice' to the residents of Twickenham who have some fantastic choices already. And, the cost of this will be that the Academies, particularly Twickenham Academy will suffer. Yes, I can see how that is fair to everyone

A Catholic VA school will have the best chance of serving residents from accross the Borough; not all residents, I grant you, but those residents, who also pay taxes and who do not curently have a school to meet their children's needs.

Mir4 your post regarding the travelling times to get to the Clifden site was very informative - thank you.