New Secondary Schools for Richmond 2

[BayJay]

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

SeenButNotHeard, he could have done, but why would he make himself the villain when there was no need for him to do so? As far as he was concerned he was just giving permission to publish proposals, nothing more. Perhaps if he had known there was going to be a loophole in his Education Act he might have made a different decision (or, more likely, closed the loophole).

Michael Gove seems to have given the council and diocese the opportunity to come up with a voluntary arrangement similar to that of Christ's. But the diocese didn't offer any proper compromise. So presumably it's now too late for them to revise their proposals? I don't quite understand this loophole.

I don't quite understand this loophole

Well, under the old rules the diocese couldn't publish VA proposals outside of a competition scenario without permission. If they got permission to publish, then there was subsequently a rigorous procedure that the council had to go through before accepting the proposals.

The new rules, which came into force on Feb 1st, say that if a council needs a new school they should consider an academy before a VA school. The council accepts that the new rules now apply.

However, there is nothing in the new act to stop the Diocese publishing VA proposals without having been asked for them, and there is (apparently) nothing in the Act to stop the council then accepting them. That is the loophole.

' . . That is the loophole.'

BayJay: thanks for making this so simple that I can understand it! This looks to me like a drafting error: it would be a bold (some would say 'rash') stroke indeed for the Tories to drive their coach through it scattering the secular majority of Twickenham families to left and right.

I imagine that they are more interested in 'dishing the Liberals' by holding onto the Council in 2014 than in helping the Catholics; so they may indeed be having some serious second thoughts about the wisdom of pressing ahead. They won the Council in 2010 by just 2 % of the votes cast.

Thanks BayJay. It will be really interesting to see how they evaluate the consultation responses - as a proposal without compromise it's certainly going to remain controversial.

Council seems to be walking on thin ice. Lets not forget that the consultation was brought upon them because of the legal pressure about " offered the opportunity - is that an offer or not an offer" debate. It could be concluded that the Council "offered the opportunity" and hence invited a Catholic VA school proposal ???

I think it would be difficult for the Conservatives to argue that the whole idea of a Catholic VA school was unsolicited by them and came as a complete bolt from the blue, especially given that the Catholic church's proposal seems to be based on having a school at the Clifden site which is being bought by the Council not on having a school somewhere yet to be decided. I don't know how much clearer the evidence of pre-judging the outcome of a consultation needs to get than the statements that have been revealed, but of course it all depends on whether anyone has the financial means to bring a legal challenge should they go ahead and decide in favour of a Catholic VA school.

Lord True voted for the Education bill and is a big supporter of free schools and academies. So he must be interested in seeing which successful free school bids are announced.

He says, 'A successful school must carry the confidence of local people.' Does that include all of the non-Catholics? I don't understand the problem with asking the Catholic VA school having a similar admissions policy to Christ's, or inviting a Catholic free school bid.

muminlondon - you should ask Lord True why he is not putting his own words into action in his own borough

The Academies Enterprise Trust is proposing that a sixth form be established at Richmond Park Academy in September 2014.
If you'd like to formally register your views, Richmond Park Academy is asking that you do so by 4 April 2012 to Debra Barlow via: [email protected], or write to:
Debra Barlow, PA to the Headteacher, Richmond Park Academy, Park Avenue, London SW14 8RG

Interesting post on twickerati twickerati.wordpress.com/2012/03/15/twickenham-richmond-school-consultation/

Just read the letter in RTT accusing Jeremy Rodell and Risc supporters of being anti faith and anti faith school, when the truth is actually the opposite. Majority of Risc supporters (including I ) practice a faith and have respect for all faiths and faith schools.What we are challenging is exclusive privilege to one faith group at the expense of other faith groups.
I know a lot of us have supported the idea of a Catholic academy and shown interest for a 50-50 proposal. I have wondered in this debate long and hard over the last few months, as to why the Catholic supporters are not showing any tolerance or willingness to compromise. How can this serve their best interest of integrating with the non catholic community?

Akahn - Perhaps this is the last bastion of prejudice.

I think it's up to the council to justify why admissions should be so exclusive, or why they need to follow this particular model at all. Catholics are just used to it. I'd also like to know what Lord True thinks of Michael Gove's letter to Vince Cable suggesting a voluntary allocation of open places. Or indeed what he thinks of Christ's school.

Askhan: I think you are mistaken in your assertion that most RISC supporters ?practice a faith?; if this was so they would be very untypical of the British population, which is mostly entirely secular or only nominally Christian.

In the 2001 census 72% of people said they were Christian. Richard Dawkins commissioned Mori to do a survey of Religious and Social Attitudes of UK Christians in 2011 last year which found that the proportion had dropped to 54 % in last year?s census (whose results we?ll get in the autumn). One third said they had ?no religion? and 4 % said they were Muslim. Of the Christians, 49 % said they had ?attended services or meetings connected with Christianity? ?Not at all during the last 12 months?; of these, 56 % last attended ?More than 10 years ago? or ?Never?.

43 % of all Christians pray ?independently and from choice? ?Less often than once a year? or ?Never or almost never?.

UKPollingReport sums up: ? . . Q11 asked people who put Christian on the census form to define their religious views ? 30% said they had strong religious beliefs and were Christian, 48% said they did not have strong religious beliefs, but thought of themselves as Christian or had been brought up to do so, 12% didn?t consider themselves religious at all, 8% thought they were spiritual rather than religious . . Exactly how one defines what constitutes a Christian is an unanswerable question ? you may equally well define being Christian as what people believe or by how they define themselves. What we can say with some certainty is that a fair proportion of people who put Christian on the census form don?t believe in a personal God, don?t consider themselves to be religious or don?t believe in some of the core tenets of Christianity. . . ?
The Catholics want a VA school to help them hold back this relentless rise in secularism which is tempting away their young people.

In my experience RISC supporters are a broad cross-section of local people, with at least 4 categories:

1. People against any state funding of faith schools (the BHA's position);
2. People who would be happy with a faith school if it had 100% inclusive admissions (RISC's official position, and the position of the Accord Coalition who are endorsing them);
3. People who would be happy with a 50:50 admissions policy (Me, Vince Cable, Michael Gove, and the law of the land are in this category)
4. People who wouldn't mind a 100% VA Catholic admissions policy, if they were also given a new community school that they could get into.

Its hard to tell how many are in each category. The Council's consultation results may give some idea of that.

And, for balance, I think the Catholic school supporters fall into at least 4 categories, and once again its impossible to know how many are in each:

1. People who want a 100% Catholic admissions policy because anything else would mean 'dilution' of the Catholic ethos (Lord True's position);
2. People who want a 100% Catholic admissions policy so that the maximum number of Catholics can access the new school (the council's original position, which may or may not be in flux);
3. People who would be happy with a 50:50 admissions policy (Me, Vince Cable, Michael Gove and the law of the land are in this category)
4. People who would be happy with a Catholic school with a 100% inclusive admissions (RISC's official position, and the position of the Accord Coalition who are endorsing them);

Notice the overlap between the two lists? The sad thing about this whole thing is that there has been so much scope for compromise and the opportunities haven't been taken.

According to Tearfund survey 2007 of church attendance:

53% adults define themselves as Christian, and in this group 55% are Church of England and 19%
Roman Catholics.

15% of Christians attend church at least monthly. 29% of this group are Church of England and 31% Catholic.

So this means 30% of the population are CofE and 10% Catholic. But Catholics are three times as likely to go to church - resulting in similar numbers of committed church goers in each group.

So it would be fair to have at least a similar number of RC faith places to Christ's (70). Or a smaller school. But the Council also needs to provide more choices for the whole borough.

BayJay, under that last category 2 and the council's position, unless we knew for sure that all the other Catholic school options will no longer be available, there will always be overprovision with the current proposals.

The link policy has been formally dropped for 2013, I hear. A lot of St James's parents contributed to that consultation so they will have better choices.

BayJay - I would like to hope that sanity will prevail when the Council takes a decision. However given that Lord True himself has shown a fundamentalist attitude in favouring 1, will the Cabinet be able to decide anything else? Do the Tories even have confidence in their leaders independence on this?
I feel that there is a major conflict of interest . Is it possible to have an independent adjudicator to review and decide on the consultation?

Jeev, I think the process is as follows:

1. Council officers prepare a report and (I'm assuming) a recommendation based on the feedback in the consultation, (hopefully) any legal advice that they have received, and obviously taking into account council policy.
2. The report and recommendation go before the Scrutiny Committee on May 15th (TBC). If the report does contain a recommendation for a decision then the scrutiny committee could "call in" the decision for more detailed scrutiny, or make recommendations (which the cabinet can choose to ignore, provided they justify their reasons for that)
3. The cabinet are due to make a decision at their meeting on May 24th.

Akhan - I was shocked and sorry to see the letter in RTT that had a personal attack on Jeremy . I have found Jeremy as being very tolerant and respectful of everyone's faiths and beliefs in all my dealings with you in the last 10 months. I am glad to see that he has in his usual dignified manner replied to the RTT and a copy can be seen here (www.facebook.com/groups/Faithschoolsrichmond/permalink/388211564523474/). I hope that the readers can make their own judgement on who is being intolerant

I have published What to do with the Clifden Road site: the Lib Dem view on the borough Lib Dem website (which I edit); it concludes:

1: There is a need for 5 form entry community school in the Twickenham/Teddington area from 2016; the Clifden road site should be used for this purpose: this would comply with the justification used to purchase the site as specified in the Cabinet report of the 21st July 2011.

2: The proposal from the diocese of Westminster and Southwark to set up a VA secondary school on the Clifden Road site will not significantly decrease the demand for community secondary school in the borough; it therefore does not comply with the justification for the purchase of the site.

This is the formal response of the Liberal Democrat Councillor group to the Clifden Road consultation.

Chris - do the Lib Dems really think that the council should mothball the site until 2016

SeenButNotHeard: No use asking me: I know no more than is in the statement; if you want to know more about the Lib Dem position please write to Cllr Malcolm Eady, spokesperson for Education: [email protected]