New Secondary Schools for Richmond 2

[BayJay]

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

BayJay: you must have fallen off their email list; try this:

A new edition of the Richmond and Twickenham Times has been released. Copy the following link into your browser to launch the interactive edition, and scroll through it as you would read it from a news stand.
edition.pagesuite-professional.co.uk/launch.aspx?pbid=c7955673-549d-44a9-9a9c-a642bedeaef8

I have published Cllr Jerry Elloy's letter to the RTT re the sixth-form plans on the local Lib Dem website for all to read; in it he draws attention to the need to subsidise the schools:

' . . What was not forthcoming (at the Council meeting) was the amount and the time period for the council's rev­enue subsidies to the schools to cover them for their losses while setting up the sixth forms. What was admitted was that it could take some years for schools to become self-financing. This could result in a bill of hundreds of thousands of pounds a year to Council tax payers . . '

For us at the North end of the Borough a 6th form at RPA is highly desirable. It is overwhelmingly supported by parents and staff. Both Richmond and Surrey College are far and it would great to see 6th form provision at our local school. Regarding funding, AET has already got funding from central government.

gmsing I noticed in RPA's latest magazine, sent round to primary schools, a focus on past pupils' successes. I can see how that makes it easier to promote a school. Also, small sixth forms can be very nurturing for bright pupils who may otherwise coast in a bigger college, especially one that's quite a long way away.

Chris, sixth forms will cost money, but in the eyes of many parents (and teachers) they're a badge of quality, and well worth it. We're a relatively prosperous borough, with the highest performing primary schools in the country at Key Stage 2, and yet our Secondaries have consistently been well behind the curve, despite their recent improvement. Although there is no direct evidence to prove it, it would be reasonable to assume that is why more of our children switch to the private sector for secondary school than any other London Borough. If you asked borough parents to vote on whether they would rather:
a) Make do with the status quo;
b) Fork out to switch to the private sector or move house;
c) Pay more council tax to pay for sixth forms, or;
d) Cut other public services to pay for sixth forms.
.. then I suspect a significant number of them would vote for (c). It is unfortunate that what they are more likely to get is (d). Of course neither (c) or (d) are likely to be popular with the non-parents in the borough.

BayJay - very well articulated points. I believe that the consultation for 6th form was concluded last year and resulted in over 80% voting in favor. I think most people want it and feel that there in enough money at Richmond and Govt level for education, without having the need to exercise c) or d). Of course a) or b) are difficult to accept.

Do the consultation documents go into detail on how and where the £ 25m is being spent and what is going to be the source of funding ?

My understanding is that the 25 million is capital cost to increase capacity. In the original consultation it was suggested that the schools should reduce their Year 7 intake in order to accomodate sixth forms in their existing buildings. I suspect that wasn't popular (for obvious reasons) and that is why the 25 million became necessary.

There is merit in questioning the multi million pounds being spent on schools. Priority should be for community schools and 6th form that will benefit everyone in the community . But I can't understand why the Lib Dems are anti 6th form when they are so needed . Seems like they have been ambushed by Lord True into fighting the wrong battle.

Akhan: to govern is to choose: how would you choose community schools and 6th forms - particularly when the borough already has a very successful sixth-form college?

As Cllr Malcolm Elloy writes in this week?s RTT]:

? . . Currently, the cohorts of young people who pass through our borough secondary schools, by the time they reach 19, are ranked 13th from·the top in educational achieve­ments in the country. Considering that a significant number of our bright young people are educated outside the borough, and therefore not included in the cohort, this result is outstanding.

They go to more than 30 different educational establishments, so choice is not limited. The two main providers are Richmond College and Esher College. Richmond College is one of the top providers in the coun­try for the highly academic international baccalaureate, with more than a 90 percent pass rate, while Esher is an outstanding college with impressive A-level results. This tertiary system provides a very good bridge between school and higher education and it is used in both Finland and Sweden, which regularly rank highly in world education performance tables . . ?

Cllr Elloy's point about our 19 year-olds being ranked 13th for achievement, just highlights what I said in my previous post. At Key Stage 2 we are top of the tree, so we should aim to maintain that position through the secondary sector too. If a significant number of our 16-19 year olds are going out of borough, then surely that just proves that they are not happy with the in-borough options?

Well said BayJay. Cllr Eady is entitled to his opinion but seems to lack the ambition to make our secondary schools outstanding No 1. 6th forms will highly increase the attractiveness of our borough secondaries. Hopefully we will then have a lot more students who move from state primary to state secondary.

Interesting debate here over a number of months. With 3 days left for the consultation tinyurl.com/rcschool-lbrut, what are everyones predictions ? Here's my go

1. Catholic VA school proposal rejected, replaced by a 50-50 VA school or Academy
2. Free schools approved - Twickenham, Hampton Church and Maharishi ( only primary)
3. Bun fight between all the above for the available sites
4. Sixth forms go ahead.
5. The party that shows the strongest spine in enabling 1 - 4 above will be elected in 2014.

Does anyone know what choice of courses these new 6th-forms will offer?

Some history, taken from Wikipedia: From 1973 Shene Grammar?s sixth form was expanded and . . became Shene College, predominately a sixth form college . . [it] merged in 1977 with Thames Valley sixth form college and the former Twickenham College of Technology on the College site as Richmond upon Thames College Richmond upon Thames College.

The College offers almost 600 courses at different levels grouped into these subject areas for 16-9 year olds:

Apprenticeships; Art & Design; Business and Economics; Catering & Hospitality; Child Care & Health and Social Care; Classical Civilisation; Community Choir; Computing & IT; Construction; Construction Crafts; Engineering; English; Enrichment; Geography and Geology; Government and Politics; Hair and Beauty; History; International Baccalaureate; Languages; Law; Mathematics; Media and Film Studies; Performing Arts; Philosophy; Photography; Psychology; Science; Sociology; Sports, Fitness and Leisure; Supported Learning; Travel & Tourism; and World Development.

It sends more students to university each year than any other institution in Europe.

Hi Parrich. If the VA proposal is rejected it will take time for the Diocese to come back with an alternative. I'd be very surprised if they have an Academy proposal in their back pocket ready to whip out immediately, and there would be no point in proposing a 50:50 VA school when they can have an Academy without the associated legal grey areas. A Catholic Free School could also be an option for 2014.

There might be a bun fight over Oldfield Rd if both Maharishi & Hampton Church free schools are approved. If the Twickenham New School is approved, and Clifden Rd is still empty at that time (i.e. no accepted Catholic school proposal, and no agreed alternative use) then the likehood is it would get that site. If not, then there are other potential sites, so I'm not expecting any buns to be thrown.

But Richmond College is also one of the biggest 16-19 colleges in Europe (4,000) so it's not a surprise if a quarter go on to university. What proportion of Richmond state school students go there?

Chris - there will always be a role for the college. The sixth forms will provide a much narrower range of courses. Nobody doubts that. However, they are still wanted, and will be popular when they are delivered.

I'm not surprised that the college sends "more students to university each year than any other institution in Europe", because it is huge. The introduction of sixth forms in Richmond, and other London boroughs, is likely to reduce the size of the college. However, that's not necessarily an argument for not doing it.

That letter (discussed here last week) from Michael Gove to Vince Cable, showing that Gove doesn't support 100% Catholic admissions in new schools, makes Lord True look like a bit of a turkey. Back in September Lord True wrote to Michael Gove saying "While Vince says the Agreement talks of 'facilitating inclusive admissions policies in as many of new faith schools as possible', I can't envisage you planned that to trump your, and the Coalition's, express wish to see faith schools able first to meet substantial levels of demand for faith places". Well, clearly he was wrong about that!

In the same letter he also refers to "the dilution of a Catholic school by making it 'inclusive'" which is pretty strong language, and very out of touch in the circumstances.

I wonder if the RTT are aware of this letter, as I'm surprised they didn't quote it in their article on Friday.

Re: LottieProsser Wed 07-Mar-12 20:34:39 When was this letter (from Gove) actually written?

The letter is dated January 18 responding to one from Vince Cable dated Nov 22; I have just been sent it and have posted it on the Lib Dem website.

He writes: ? . . my decision to allow the diocese to publish proposals does not fall within the regime set out in the Education Act 2011 . . ? (and so is not unlawful) but he doesn?t give any details as to why this is so.

Interesting points. I don't understand the Education Act provisions and it's not helpful that there doesn't seem to be a copy of the whole Act as amended on the Government legislation website. But Government is quite capable of getting the legal position completely wrong as we have seen on a number of occasions recently.

I can sort of understand why Lord True would think what he wrote because the Government's vision seems to be of an education system where not only the children of the faithful but also a lot of other children go to faith schools because it is assumed that they are better. So Lord True presumably sees the Catholic VA school as a catch-up measure to be followed by a Catholic Academy and other new faith schools? It's only in areas like this that have various community schools that are full of middle class children where we begin to see the possibility that schools that are very middle-class but not religious are able to perform as well as faith schools. In most areas the faith schools have more middle-class children as we have seen so that helps them to get better results.

Bay Jay - do let us know as soon as you can where the other potential sites for a secondary school in Twickenham are. Assume you are sworn to secrecy. I can't see why the Maharishis couldn't open in Twickenham aswell if there are really other sites - it would be much more central that the Oldfield site which is practically in the next borough.

Chris, the reason why Gove's decision didn't fall under the Education Act 2011 was because it wasn't in force when he made the decision. It came into force on February 1st. This is my summary of the legal position:

• The Diocese were given permission to publish their VA proposals in December, under the old education act.

• The transition rules for the new education act say that the new rules apply if proposals are published after Feb 1st.

• The Diocese did not publish its proposals by Feb 1st, so the new rules do apply.

• The new rules says that if the the council needs a new school they have to ask for Academy proposals before seeking VA proposals.

• However, there seems to be a loophole.

• The council are claiming there is nothing in the act to stop them accepting a proposal that has been independently published (i.e. not asked for by them).

• This is arguably not in the spirit of the new act. If the council goes down this route they may be exposing themselves to a legal challenge.

• There may be some internal debate going on within the council and the local Conservatives about whether it is a good idea for them to use this loophole. The big question is: will the council be bullish enough to accept the VA proposal despite the muddy legal position?

Really shocked to see Lord True's role in blocking a compromise solution advocated by two senior Cabinet Ministers.He and his Cabinet colleagues, seem to have already made up their mind, before listening to the views of the consultation. Given his position and that of his Cabinet colleagues, how can they be trusted to make an unbiased decision on the consultation - there seems to be a major conflict of interest !

Jeev - Gove gave consent to publish the proposals - if he did not want to see a VA school, he only had to say no!

SeenButNotHeard, as Michael Gove says in his letter of Oct 1st, "Where I consider that an application should be approved, this is, as I think you are aware, only consent to publish proposals. The proposer, which in this case would most likely be the Diocese, must still follow the statutory process of consultation, publication, representation, decision and implementation."

The issue is that the council are now claiming that they don't have to follow that process.

Really shocked to see Lord True's role in blocking a compromise solution advocated by two senior Cabinet Ministers

Jeev, to be clear, he didn't know Michael Gove's position at the time. He was responding to Vince Cable's position, and (wrongly) assuming that Michael Gove's would be different.

BayJay, I understand that, but again, if he did not wish to see a VA school, he could have put the lid on it at the outset...