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!

The RISC papers comprise: Taking Risks with Secondary School Priorities (9 pages), a summary and an oral precis, and two council papers for the Scrutiny meeting. The main paper is a detailed critique of the council forecast; it considers: birthrate increases and new school places in neighbouring boroughs, imports and exports of pupils, the %s going private, free schools, and likely end of school links.

To me the most startling new information is about the birthrate increase over the last decade: Richmond?s 25 % is actually less than its neighbours?: Kingston 29 %, Wandsworth 33 % and Hounslow 41 %. These boroughs are not planning, let alone actually building, enough new places for these extra pupils. Nonetheless, Richmond?s forecast is that the number of out of borough children entering our schools each year will fall from c. 450 now to c. 350 in 2013.

It will be interesting to see if the Council responds to this critique or ignores it and presses on regardless. If they ignore it they may one day find themselves having to explain to a High Court judge why, if and when this imbroglio becomes a matter for judicial review.

I guess that this information will be a useful argument on both sides - it will be even more difficult for Richmond's Catholic children to access out of borough Catholic schools if the birth rates in our surrouding boroughs is rising so rapidly.

The 49% at private schools is pretty staggering too. I found an estimate of 45% here but RISC's chart gives a comparison with other boroughs which puts it into context.

Interesting that people are talking about Judicial Reviews already - Just as I had feared really - it seems that consultation will not be enough for RISC (unless of course they get what they want)

Seenbutnotheard, RISC haven't talked about judicial review (yet). ChrisSquire mentioned it in a hypothetical sense, but he doesn't represent RISC. I don't think anyone posting in this forum at the moment represents RISC.

With all the demand pressures, it seems unlikely that out of borough students will leave Richmond. The potential shortages in secondary school places are concerning and should be addressed by the council. As reported in RTT, Vince Cable has rightly pointed that to Gove that a 50-50 solution is more fair in such uncertainties. However Lord True does not want a compromise and hence will the consultation really be fair ?

BayJay is correct: I don't represent RISC or anybody else for that matter, though it is well known that I am an active Liberal Democrat and edit their borough website including its School places page.

So please do not read more into my opinions than is actually there. Who knows how this imbroglio will end? With pistols for two and breakfast for one and Lord True and Jeremy Rodell in shirtsleeves settling their differences like gentleman on the lawn of York House, perhaps?

dear oh dear. What a very poor paper from RISC - the conclusions appear rather sad, and not only very weak. The main argument that informs the paper seems to be that tried and trusted one used when there isn't really a case: the council is taking a risk, unintended consequences, long time period - all very difficult give us what we want.
I would take it more seriously if they recognised at least the possibility of a Catholic VA school and set out some criteria that might make that option more palatable to themselves (I have set out in previous inputs what these might be) but there's is a principled stand against a Catholic school and better a glorious defeat than a working compromise. Supporters of RISC is demur from this very poor analysis should submit their own paper

chrisquire - thank you for the link to the Lib Dem pages on schools. Glad to see Vince Cable and the Lib Dem party back where they are generally comfortable: sitting on the fence..... support the "ambition" of Catholics to have a school; all very Augustinian which at least the Catholics will understand if not endorse.

Vince Cable's message tonight: . . The current local proposals are proving quite divisive and I don't want to see this issue becoming political. There is no money or land for two secondaries. So, I have written to the Church welcoming their school, but asking them to volunteer a mixed admission policy to help meet some community concerns. I hope religious tolerance will prevail, all round.

Chrisquire yes I had read this, sounds like Mr Cable recoginises that the Catholic VA school is now a strong probability rather than a possibility, Does Vince know something RISC doesn;t know? or has he simply worked out that if the Catholic church are prepared to fund the refurb that will count for a lot in the context of no clear and praciticable alternative for the site.
I too hope religious tolerance will prevail but the divisive language of RISC - only their school, which they haven't set out, can be inclusive though when Bayjay tried to describe what she wanted it was far from inclusive).
I had a proposal for a voluntarily agreed "mixed admission policy" by the Catholic school - only increasing the Catholic intake to 100 per cent over a period of years, but that was riddiculed on this thread. At least Vince is trying to find a way forward - methinks the weakness of the RISC paper and the reading between Vince;s lines suggest that it is too late.

I thank Vince Cable for listening to us and trying to work on a compromise solution. Florist please be kind enough to articulate what issues you have with secondary school predictions on community places. Maybe as you are not from Richmond you do not have an appreciation for the detail and challenges with secondary education, pressure on school places and discrimination faced by non catholics. We now have 2 different sources and independent methods that show a shortage of secondary school places and do not agree with councils strategy

akhan - my understanding is that there are community based academy, "inclusive" schools in Richmond with places available. There is also funding from the Catholic church for a new school which will offer something to Catholics of the borough while not competing with the existing academies. What is it about the "inclusive" places that are available that are no good - and why are people oppossing the Catholic VA school option so reluctant to spell out precisely what "inclusive" option they also want to be considered and which is not provided by the existing provision.

Florist, the nastiness of your tone, and your lack of knowledge of the local issues, does your argument no favours. Vince Cable's position has been consistent throughout this debate, and indeed since 2002, that he supports faith schools with inclusive admissions.

Bayjay not sure what is the issue with tone - deal with the substance of the argument and explain why the RISC paper is so weak.

Florist I am afraid that your response further indicates your lack of understanding and appreciation of Richmond issues and I am not sure that you have read the relevant papers. Places are available in academies today but there is a risk that there will not be spare places in 2013 as demand increases.
Do you have any credible arguments relating to specific details in RISC paper regarding the demand projections ?

florist, I'm not going to debate the specifics of the numbers with you. I provided a link to the papers and people will have to read them objectively and make up their own mind.

My high level view is that the council produced their forecasts to belatedly justify a long-standing policy, and that RISC have legitimately identified pressures that are missing from those forecasts. The council's response needs to show how those pressures will be catered for.

We know demand is increasing and we know that both the Councils and RISC's forecasts will be wrong - planning deamnd is an art not a science.

We also know that "inclusive" schools of the kind that RISC want are not favoured by local parents based on the undersubcribed academies and the lack of clarity around what RISC does actually want - we also know that there may be an option for a Catholic VA school which might provide an educational offer that will be attractive to parents as well as the council tax payer.

There is always a risk (or should that be RISC) but from what we do know my judgement would be that the risk is loaded against creating another school that parents don't want and which cannabilises places in the undersubscribed "inclusive" schools. There is less of a risk that the Catholic VA option might fail - it's just a judgement call. All the forecast demand in the world matters not a jot if the supply side is wrong - and the problem in Richmond seems to me to be a supply-side issue, not a demand side one.

Florist - It is absolutely clear to everyone in Richmond what RISC supporters want - "every state-funded school opening in the borough from now on is inclusive, so that no child can be denied a place in a good local school because of the religion or belief of their parents"
You are probably not aware of the history with the academies. To help them succeed everyone in the community including catholics need to come forward. There is also plenty of science and rigour in the RISC detailed analysis. The council projections do seem to be more of an creative art to justify their pro catholic VA school position .
As you are from a neighbouring borough maybe you could add value to the discussion by checking this with your local council. Will they will have places to accommodate their students that Richmond councils claims will back out of Richmond schools over the next 2 -3 years and free up spaces?

florist, again, your lack of local knowledge is leading you to unjustified conclusions. People do want inclusive schools. That is why our inclusive primaries are bursting at the seams. However, there has historically been a huge difference in quality between primary and secondary level. The academies are undersubscribed because they are new schools, replacing schools that were simply not up to scratch; schools which people would move house or go private (if they could afford it) to avoid. Now that those schools are being transformed, it will take a little time for them to rebuild their reputations, but they are on that journey, and we all wish them well. A new school at Clifden will also take time to build a reputation, and will no doubt also be a building site for a while. However, it can have a strong ethos and still be inclusive without detracting from the Academies. There are more than enough children to fill all of the schools provided their quality is high enough.

Florist you are also wrong in saying that local parents do not want local inclusive community schools - we have great inclusive community primary as well as secondary schools that are well sought after by all local parents.

I clearly hit a raw nerve despite just stating the facts. But Akhan makes an interesting point: that RISC only want non faith schools, not just on the Clifden Road site but for ever and ever just as Accord does nationally.

Bayjay to compare primary oversubscribed schools with undersubscribed secondaries makes my point for me: that the self same parents in Richmond who are happy with the supply of primary places are less than happy with the existing providaers of secondary places - you can't keep saying it will take years for the under subscribed schools to fill up as you say the demand for such "inclusive" schools is here and now.

And no matter how much Akhan berate Catholic and non Catholic parents to send their children to the 100% state funded and open admission schools it is likely to not have much affect.

A campaign that has no fall back position (other than perhaps the judicial review court) and that is not willing to engage in the messy politics of priorities and compromises in a tough financial climate for council tax payers is failling its own supporters.

When RISC presented their petition, they made it clear that they are not against faith schools including catholic school. Issue is inclusiveness and the VA status of a Catholic school . A Catholic academy with 50-50 admission policy is a potential compromise option that could be evaluated during consultation.

It really is not unreasonable that 1:9 of our secondary schools should be Catholic.

The figures presented by RISC just go to demonstrate how difficult it will be for Richmond's Catholic children to gain a place in a school outside of the borough when LA's like Hounslow have a birth rate that has increased by 40%.
Unless, of course people don't think that Catholic children are included in this increase

Interestingly, I have just received my latest newsletters from the Lib Dems (both counsellors and Vince) and the school is not even mentioned. I think that this has become too much of a political hot potato. As I said earlier in this thread - one of my local counsellors, who I spoke to prior to the election, told me that they were committed to the provision of a Catholic Secondary school; they assured me that the problem was one of finding a site, rather than a lack of desire.
I also have a letter from another Lib Dem counsellor who assures me that it has been Lib Dem policy to support the provision of a Catholic secondary school since 2002.