New Secondary Schools for Richmond 2

[BayJay]

I'm starting this new thread because the other one of the same name has filled up.

Here it is: [[http://www.richmond.gov.uk/home/council_government_and_democracy/council/council_consultations/consultation_details.htm?id=C00933 ' . . The Council is aware that many people in the borough hold strong views on the type of education, if any, that should be provided at Clifden Road. This consultation provides an opportunity for residents to have their say on the proposals for the site.
Your views are important to us and the information you provide will help the Council understand residents' concerns and priorities prior to making its decision about how the site will be used . . Please complete the survey by 5pm on the 16th March 2012.]]

And here's the briefing document: Consultation with Richmond upon Thames residents on use of the Clifden Road site, Twickenham.

This is odd. On the link policy consultation page the Cabinet is due to make its final decision about link schools on 22 March.

In the Catholic school consultation briefing (page 14) the date has mysteriously changed to 24 May.

The admissions forum meeting is on 6 February and that doesn't appear to have changed.

Why would it have changed? Does the council view the consultations as being linked?

The major reaction I have to this consultation document is that it shows a large number of variables that could result in a big variation in numbers of secondary school places needed for in-borough children just over the next 3-4 years so it's absolute madness to be rushing into making a decision this year on what to do with the Clifden site in a way that limits access to it for 90% of local children over the next 125 years. 2027 is an awfully long way away! We are being told that Catholic children are likely to find it increasingly difficult to get places in the surrounding Catholic schools but at the moment the vast majority of them seem to be getting places so I am not clear why an immediate decision has to be made. We have not been given the complementary info showing the pressure on places in Catholic schools and all the anecodotal evidence I have heard from Catholic friends is that they are still getting places and upon arrival are finding children there who have travelled from a lot further away who would presumably fail to get places before Richmond children eg. a friend whose daughter has gone to Gumley has a girl from Battersea in her class. I've also seen reports that the RACC won't actually be ready to move out until summer 2013 so the sale might not even be completed until then?

The background info is selective and raises questions, e.g.:

• At the nearest RC primary to Clifden (St Edmund's?) last year 88% of inborough pupils were offered their first choice. What a high satisfaction rate - considering that 10% of Richmond pupils weren't even offered ANY of their preferences! So why there? And why the rush?

• Regarding Sacred Heart: either interest in transferring to a Catholic secondary dropped by 20% once they got their link to Teddington OR new pupils (lapsed or non-Catholics) filled the previously empty places just to get their golden ticket into Teddington . Which would be true?

In general I think the document is fairly well balanced - they've certainly made an effort to be so. The bit I think is disingenuous is their emphasis on the low demand for inclusive secondary places from the Catholic community. It ignores the fact that people tend not to apply to schools that they know they have no chance of getting into. In the Linked School consultation documents they were very careful to make it clear that people's choices may have been different if the Link system was not in place. They don't demonstrate the same caution in this document.

Weekend reading material 1) Council consultation documents richmond.gov.uk/home/council_government_and_democracy/council/council_consultations/consultation_details.htm?id=C00933 2) Diocese consultaion documents www.rcdow.org.uk/richmondconsul 3) RISC briefing on secondary school places www.richmondinclusiveschools.org.uk/files/index?folder_id=6834144

Agree that the paper is manipulative on the subject of Catholics not applying to community schools, particularly in relation to St. James where they have had no chance of getting into their two nearest mixed community schools, Teddington and Orleans Park. It also totally fails to address the fact that most of the available places are at Richmond Park Academy which is a long journey from where the children who will be without places first are in North Teddington and South Twickenham. Most of the Catholics who say their children have to make long journeys to school are choosing to send them a long way to avoid their local community secondary school, whereas these families will have no choice.

Sacred Heart is in Teddington and linked to Teddington School but takes a lot of children who aren't from Teddington and thus are too far away geographically to get into Teddington School as it is oversubscribed. Many of the children come from Hampton and Hampton Hill where I am told the Catholic priests are nicer about signing the relevant references authenticating Catholicism. However a friend whose daughter was at Sacred Heart until 2010 said that there were children in her Year 6 class from Esher and Staines. Therefore the fact that 7 out of 28 children from Year 6 choose their local community secondary means that actually a much higher percentage of those who stand a chance of getting into it are choosing it. Sacred Heart also has a fairly high percentage of children going onto private schools such as Hampton, LEHS and Kingston Grammar. I know plenty of parents from there who chose to go private despite having been given places at Catholic secondaries. The information in the consultation document does not say how many children from Catholic primaries go to private schools as opposed to out of borough Catholic secondary schools. It only talks about where they applied but obviously most parents will apply as a back-up even if they intend to go private if possible. I'm sure if they asked about their intentions as part of this consultation nearly all parents at Catholic schools would say that they wanted their children to go to a Catholic state secondary but I really wonder if that is actually the case and if many of them have always intended go private anyway as do many borough children, particularly on the Richmond side of the river.

Lottie - you raise a number of interesting points - but I'm not sure how easy it is to draw conclusions from them.

With regards to Sacred Heart, the situation isn't going to be straightforward. By year 6, it is possible that a number of the children that transfer to Teddington School are non-Catholics that have moved in later years to the school simply for the Teddington School link. We don't know this information from the figures provided. What we can tell is that its location (and presumably that of most of its intake) has always been one of the worst for both getting in to (quality) Catholic secondaries and for transport links to them. If a parent of a child is faced with a choice of either St Paul's Sunbury or Teddington School - it's going to be a no-brainer which they'll choose!

It does seem more likely to me that the vast majority will choose a Catholic Secondary in Twickenham over Teddington school. (This does rather assume that its going to be a good school of course!) And if the Sacred Heart pupils are spread over a large geographic area then it can be seen as positive if most pupils can transfer to the same secondary.

The figures published on the school's website don't actually show a huge number transferring to the private sector, only 3 out of 25 last year. Although that might not be typical and be purely indicative of the current economic climate.

The question for me is whether the understandable wishes of a minority should supersede the potential uncertainty faced by the majority. The council is rushing this decision. There is no immediate need for a either a new Catholic or a new community secondary. Places in both sectors are currently in surplus, so it would make sense to simply wait and see. Buy the Clifden site by all means, but sit on it until it is clear what the priority needs to be.

I do get annoyed by the argument that "Catholics are taxpayers too" which I noticed also crept into the consultation document. It's quite a nasty little statement. It seems to imply that only wealthy minorities are important. It suggests that non taxpayers, despite often being the most vulnerable in society, can be simply ignored.

That's interesting LittleMrsMuppet that you read the council tax references like that. I read it as a response RISC talking saying things like "It's a fantastic deal for the Church. A terrible deal for the taxpayer"

I really hope that people don't share your view that this is about wealthy minorities. That would be very

It isn't a direct response though, is it? Its a quite separate argument.

The direct response to RISC is that the church will be providing the funds for development of the site thus saving taxpayer's money.

The trouble is, Richmond Catholics ARE a wealthy and powerful minority. They are also an exceptionally organised, united and driven minority. And whether you like it or not, that gives Catholics an unfair advantage.

I agree LittleMrsMuppet, the document misleads with the implication that a new community secondary would cost £50 million whereas a catholic school is a net gain of £10 million. It does not state the cost of buying the Clifden site - do we assume it comes from an entirely different accounting line if the school is Catholic? Hardly.

The argument that 200 pupils are choosing Catholic schools anyway and are currently travelling a long way is strong enough. I can even see that most - not all - would still prefer a Catholic school over a community should that barrier be removed, in contrast with pupils from the CofE schools.

But the argument is weakened by the siting of this school at Clifden when Gumley is so near - the risk of YET ANOTHER boy dominated school (the faith criteria prevents an easing of that pressure on other Richmond schools). Or several Catholic schools in the Richmond/Hounslow area that will still have to take pupils from a wide area to maintain rolls, cancelling out the benefit of shorter journeys.

This is the 'Waldgrave effect' (to which a 'Gumley effect' could complicate thimgs) - 66% of Teddington pupils are boys, a 2:1 ratio, and 60% of Orleans Park. Contrast 52% at Grey Court.

I am confused - is the Council consultation document actually the Diocese consultation document and the Diocese document just a summary of the Councils? Apart from merely stating that there are opposite views , it only presents the case for Catholic VA school. BayJay how can that be called a balanced and fair document? We were expecting to see justification to the challenges to their secondary school strategy. There is no logical explanation for example for the 300 odd out of borough students that will leave Richmond schools. As Richmond schools on borough boundary get popular like RPA, they will only attract more out of borough and in borough students . The prediction that RPA will still have 40 spaces in 2014 is not giving their progress due credit . The Council need to show greater support for our academies that have been created for everyone. Putting words into action will mean that they lead by example, send their own kids there, encourage all local primaries to adopt them and build community cohesion and not let 1 group get an exclusive opt out from academies. Unfortunately their proposal will do exactly the opposite.

Jeev - I meant that the wording was (mostly) balanced. All my opinions on the riskiness of the forecasts (as expressed previously in this thread) still stand.

Another thing they omit to point out is that if a Free School, like this one, takes the site, then the government will fund the refurbishments, so the council will be no worse off than if the Diocese gets it.

That is a good point BayJay and if one wants to use the value for money argument, then free school represents better value. So will be a Catholic academy that also gets govt funding. Its a shame that the current proposals do not consider and evaluate that option. It seems that the Catholic school at Clifden is proposed to be a VA school only to get around the academy rule of 50% places for community. It could still turn into an academy later on. I saw this on the Diocese of Westminister site www.totalcatholic.com/tc/index.php/uk-and-ireland-news/1973-catholic-schools-will-become-academies-to-guarantee-survival.

LITTLE MISS MUPPET:-The trouble is, Richmond Catholics ARE a wealthy and powerful minority. They are also an exceptionally organized, united and driven minority. And whether you like it or not, that gives Catholics an unfair advantage.

From one of the many very definitely NOT wealthy and powerful Catholic minority I find this comment not only incorrect but also extremely offensive. Are you trying to mislead readers into assuming that 300 Catholic children are not entitled to an education in their own borough because apparently all of them can afford private education? Well I certainly couldn't and very few Catholic families I know in this borough are in the position where they could afford it either. Please refrain from making sweeping comments and stick to an argument that does not belittle the very genuine needs and desires of many Catholic families. Yes Catholic families are united ,in our belief and our Faith and the concern for the welfare of our children (as are all parents I hope with the latter).There is no sinister organized and driven minority but there is faith and trust.

Mir4 - I was not making reference to the financial position of individual Catholic families, which I am quite certain you realised.

I am not entirely sure why you are suggesting that anyone would think that Catholics should be educating their children privately. Or why you think that it would be "sinister" that Catholics are organised and driven, for that matter.

This column heading is extremely misleading:

'% of Year 6 pupils transferring to Catholic secondary schools'.

The figure for St Elizabeth's in 2010 is 97%. But that's merely the number who DON'T go to a state secondary school. The link school policy has prevented them from puttiing Orleans Park as an option (they had a link to Orleans Park until 2002 so some must have preferred this in the past).

In fact, look at their 2010 profile - I make it 33 pupils, of which 67% choose a Catholic school (private or state) but a fairly sizeable 30% choosing a non-Catholic private school.

That's not 97%.

And the other interesting figure is the number at St Elizabeth's choosing single-sex schools (Catholic or non-Catholic) - 85%.

No doubt it is for the diocese to ascertain whether pupils would turn down St Paul's Girls, LEH, Tiffin, Oratory or Sacred Heart in favour of the co-ed school at Twickenham. But is there a question about parental preferences for a co-ed school on their consultation questionnaire?

Littlemissmuppet I too find your comments offensive; you admit your were talking about Catholics as a group - substitute the word Catholic for another Abrahamic faith and you might see why your comment is offensive (even if you presumably meant no offence). Is this the Catholic organised, rich conspiracy that echos comments by a little Austrian man once about another faith group

Florist - frankly I think find it abhorrent that you are trying make an analogy between modern day British Catholics and the Jews who suffered so horrendously in the holocaust.

I'm not.

I read LittleMrsMuppet's comment as referring to the Catholic church and associated institutions, rather than to either individual Catholics, or 'Catholics as a group'. Is that right LittleMrsMuppet?

No. She said "They" not it.

She said "They" not it.
True, but I would be prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt. We can't all be precise in our use of language all the time (though it does help when dealing with sensitive issues).