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!

goodnessme, the Linked School Policy was introduced in 1992 to try and counteract the effects of the Greenwich Judgement which prevents Local Authorities from prioritising admissions to in-borough children. However, it has been controversial for many years, because of its unintended effects (not least on children at Catholic primaries who woul like to go to community secondaries) and recent lobbying by local people (not least by people from this forum) has led to it being reviewed. A consultation will start on that very soon.

I'm not sure whose "hypocrisy" you're referring to, but if its the hypocrisy of the Linked School policy that you mean then at least you will get the opportunity to express that in the consultation.

So far no such consultation has been held to assess demand for different types of school in the borough.

But BayJay, do you not get my point that if we all worked hard to improve the schools already established in the borough, noone really would give a flying F* about a Catholic Secondary because we would be happy with the schools available locally.

~As it is, I would not have a chance of getting my child into the new school anyway, regardless of it's admission policy. In much the same way as my child not attending a primary linked to Orleans Park so having no chance of getting in there.

Whatever the new school is, the only school that I currently have a chance of being able to send my child to is RPA and improving the outcomes for children who attend should be the priority for us all.

I honestly think that the Inclusive Schools Campaign is anti Catholic and is trying to fool everyone that it is not. If only some of the energy was put into really wanting to improve outcomes for all children, as suggested by Hester and the like, we could all be happy.

Wanting to improve outcomes for everyone means a real change for the better is needed across the borough, not concentrating on a proposed school that will only benefit 90-120 new children a year.

and breathe

goodnessme, many of the people supporting the RISC campaign are already governors, teachers and actively supportive parents at local schools, so they already work hard to improve current schools. Whichever secondary school my children end up at I will work hard to ensure that it is the best possible experience, and I'm sure most other parents reading this would say the same thing.

It is probably true that the majority of the more active supporters live close to the site and will be affected personally by the changes. That is why the amount of interest in RISC sky-rocketed when the site itself was announced. However, the supporters of the Catholic school campaign are motivated by self-interest too. Its a powerful force!

However, the pursuit of fairness is also a powerful force. That is why many of us who will be negatively impacted if the Linked School policy is dropped, would still argue for it to be reformed. It is also why there are many Catholics supporting the RISC campaign.

Those living around the proposed site already have a good chance of getting into Orleans, or Waldegrave.

Maybe the name of the campaign schold be changed to the Twickenham Inclusive Schools Campaign as it can't possibly think that the outcome of the school on the Clifton site will positively effect the school chances for children living towards Sheen, Mortlake or Kew.

Sorry but this has really got my goat.

goodnessme, the current focus of the RISC campaign is Twickenham, but if the council suddenly announced that it had bought a site next-door to you, then the wording of the campaign, and the petition, would apply equally to that site.

Many people in Twickenham do not have a good chance of going to Waldegrave or Orleans, and will have less chance in the future. That is why they feel strongly about the Clifden site.

But if, as it currently looks, the council are not going to buy another site, for the good of children accross the borough, we should focus our energy on the schools that already exist.

That benefits all doesn't it?

I think that the Catholic community are discriminated against in terms of school places and this new site will at least go part of the way to rectify that.

I also think that some of those involved in the RISC should declare their personal interest in this and get away from the 'campaigning for everyone' bollocks.

goodnessme, the Catholic community are discriminated against in terms of transferring to community schools, and that should be addressed. However, many would argue that they are not discriminated against in provision of Catholic secondary options.

Have you read the whole of this thread? Also have you read the parallel thread in the Secondary School forum? This has been a long-running debate, and so far everyone has been very respectful of other people's views. If you suspect an individual's motivation, perhaps you could take it up with them personally.

BayJay - sorry if you think that my wording has been a little harsh - I have sat on my feelings on this matter for some time and seem to have let-rip today

I have read the whole of this thread which is one of the reasons why I want to shake those living in my neck of the woods not to blindly follow the RISC at the expense of improving standards in their local schools.

I have not seen the other thread though - will have a look now. Thanks.

I really appreciate your comments goodnessme - so well put and they make total sense. I'll declare my position up front. I am a practicing catholic who had a catholic education (free) and so was well placed to 'pass on the faith' to my kids. My kids did get in to a catholic primary - by metres I'm guessing - and I worry, as do so many parents, about the next stage. Of course I'd love a Catholic secondary in the borough though fear we might not get in (based on distance). As it is, my daughter hankers to 'walk to school'. I tell her it is possible...if we leave the house an additional 40 mins before we do. I'm hoping when she's a little older, some days we could do that walk together. I don't like to think about the logistics of her journey to a catholic school out of the Borough though I will have to.
As she hits her teenage years I know her commitment to her faith will wane/wobble and I probably won't have the back up of a church school to help with that. And it is a great pity that our kids will be cut loose at 11 from that.

I agree that all of us should focus on raising standards in the ailing schools on our doorsteps. So often I read those articles in the Evening Standard etc where a 'poorly performing' school has been turned around - sometimes in as little as 3 years! Less time than it takes to build a new school I'm guessing. Wouldn't it be great if the passion, energy, drive and intelligence of the parents in the inclusive school group got behind these local schools. Wow - what a difference we might see. I think all of us in the Borough - catholic and non, those close to the site and those not close should work towards that.
(hops off soap box)

sequoia, I suspect you may have cross-posted that based on goodnessme's early postings, and that you may not have yet read the full exchange, so I won't repeat any of the points that I made. However, they do apply to your post too.

I'm sure everyone wishes the three academies well, and hope that they reach their full potential. There has been a lot of discussion about them in this thread already.

Sequoia, just reading your post again a bit more carefully, I think that you are advocating that the Catholic community should embrace the Academies as much as everyone else. That would certainly help to relieve the current controversy!

Although my wording may well have been harsh - I still stand by my argument BayJay.

You yourself have said that "It is probably true that the majority of the more active supporters live close to the site and will be affected personally by the changes" - I see little mention of this in the RISC website.

The Richmond Inclusive Schools Campaign (RISC) has been in existence for many months, and was already gathering a lot of support before the site was announced in July. That certainly accelerated their growth.

Once again, I agree that we should all support the Academies. Perhaps in the future, when they have been succesful in their improvement strategies, many Catholics will choose them too.

goodnessme -

I am m a community board member of RPA and fully interested in its success and turnaround. We all need to strive hard to get the community to embrace RPA and all our other academies. However if we want the academies to attract more local children, surely we must encourage everyone, including Catholics, to embrace them. Having different standards for Catholics and other community members simply creates division. This Divide and Rule policy is discriminatory. People from all backgrounds in Richmond want their hard earned tax money to be spent in a fair and non discriminatory manner.

In the quindrat of Barnes, Mortlake, East Sheen and Kew the only state funded school is Richmond Park Academy. The nearest state schools from the centre of Barnes are 1) Sacred Heart High School & London Oratory both Roman Catholic State funded and 2) Christ's School, a Mixed Church of England comprehensive school in Richmond, where Catholic students get priority. So majority of people in Barnes have fewer choices on state secondary education than the Catholics.

The Council has no electoral mandate for making two new Catholic schools a top priority, using the first - and so far only - available site, regardless of the needs of the borough as a whole, or for it to be a Voluntary Aided school with discriminatory admissions. The significant news now is that a Voluntary Aided (VA) Catholic primary is also proposed along with the secondary will, of course, further enflame the situation. They have so far been only talking about a Catholic secondary school - but now it is ‎2 new schools, 0 consultations - 90% of the borough excluded from both. Catholic VA 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.
Council should immediately consult all the borough's residents and then based on the response decide on the best use of Clifden Road site. This is needed urgently to restore the communal harmony.

The inclusive school petition (tinyurl.com/riscpetition1) asked the Council ?to ensure that 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". Over 2000 people from across the community have supported it, with beliefs ranging from the non-religious to Anglicans, Muslims, Hindus, Jews and Catholics, including parents and senior figures from borough schools.

Look, I am not a Catholic but I am not, as appears to be the case with many, anti Catholic either.

It seems reasonable to me, when there are so many Catholic primary schools that there should be a in-borough Catholic secondary school for children to move on to.

If the other schools already in-borough were of a better quality, we would not be having this debate would we? (unless of course this really is an an anti Catholic debate)
What ever this school ends up being is a red-herring as it will have no impact on the admission chances of children north of the borough. We have no choice but to concentrate our efforts on improving the life chances for our children by improving the schools that they will end up attending.

I can see why parents living in the immediate vicinity of the proposed site would not be happy, but given that if the linked schools policy was removed, they would be on the door step of Orleans Park, I can't have too much sympathy. I would love my child to be able to attend there.

This new school will be tiny and many Catholics living in borough will be unable to get a place so I can't see that there is much chance of places going out of borough - and if they do, the numbers will be far, far fewer than out of borough places in our other schools.

As stated in thread above supporters of the RISC campaign comprise people from all backgrounds, religions and affiliations.

I fully support the petition, and being Catholic and having children already at an outstanding local community secondary school certainly have no self interest or anti-catholic sentiments motivating me, rather a strong sense of what is fair and right overall for children in this borough.

I would encourage anyone who shares this view to express their feelings to their local MP so they are aware of the strength of public opinion against the proposals, especially important as no consultation has taken place.

It is not "children in this borough" though is it? The designation of this secondary school will either effect Catholic children in this borough (covering a larger geographical area) or, in the case of a non-denominational school, children who live within a very small catchment area because the school is going to be so small as to not have an impact on children living any distance away.

The designation of this school does nothing to improve the chances of my child, or his peers living in our neighbourhood. I might even argue that the saved 10% running costs that a VA school would free up could more easily then be ploughed back into schools that need help.

Self-correct = 10% Building costs

goodnessme - you are spot by saying the reason people are so upset is because of the perceived lack of quality of some of the other in-Borough Secondaries.

However, it does seem that the crux of your argument seems to be that because you won't personally have access to the school whatever its admission policies, it makes not a jot to you what they are.

I am personally fortunate to live in the catchment of a secondary that I would be perfectly happy with. As a Catholic family we could now have even more choice. Lovely. Aren't we lucky?

The flaw in your argument is that you seem to think that this new school will have no impact on you. How do you think it is being paid for? It's a nice-to-have, not a necessity. Given we're supposed to be tightening our belts it strikes me as an extraordinary poor use of limited funds. Besides, the idea of "in-Borough" equating to it being a local school is misleading. For many children this new school will actually be further away than other Catholic options.

goodnessme, the reason why RISC have such strong support is that they are not anti-religious. Many people (including me) would not have chosen to support them if they were. The campaign is endorsed by the Accord Coalition which includes religious groups, political groups and teachers unions, who are all working together towards common goals, namely to open up the admssions of faith schools, ensure they have fair employment policies (as they are currently exempt from important aspects of equalities legislation), and ensure that they have curricula that are accountable to OFSTED. Accord would not have agreed to endorse the campaign if they thought it was anti-religious. If you have encountered individuals who are anti-Catholic then of course you should confront them, and if they claim to represent RISC then you should let the campaign organisers know about it. However, to claim that the whole campaign is anti-catholic is unjustified. Even Lord True is on record as saying that RISC isn't anti-Catholic (sorry I can't find the link right now, but it was in a letter he wrote to the RTT a while ago).

The 'catchment' argument is an interesting one as I believe the only non-linked school secondary in our borough not to be undersubscribed is Waldegrave.
I just don't see the RISC jumping up and down about linked schools and the inherent inequality in this. As demonstrated by the arguments put forward in Chrissquire's link.

I guess there will always be winners and losers in any change to policies or new provision so I guess in that, you can consider yourself 'lucky' - I do however still believe that we need to focus on improving the schools that we already have as this is the only way in which we can indeed ensure that we are benefitting all childen, across the borough. We have schools that are undersubscribed - we need to tackle that!

And, I still think that it is reasonable that Catholic children, whose parents are also tax payers, have an opportunity to attend an in-borough Catholic secondary.

Without question, for me, the priority is to support the existing schools, including making sure the council actually supports them on the way to excellence, supporting appropriate and strong leadership

Personally, in principle, I am against state support for religious schools of all flavours,this is the system we have, so we have to work within it.
But I would not support the petition if it was targeting this proposed school on the sole basis of it being Catholic,
However no argument that I have seen has persuaded me that the proposed VA Catholic school is the best use of the scarce money available.