New Secondary Schools for Richmond 2

[BayJay]

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

Fair point, wimpykid, such details are not relevant to this particular debate, and not remarkable. It merely illustrates a general point that it is unusual to find elected politicians responsible for education policy who have experience of unselective state schools (either as a pupil or teacher).

muminlondon: you are quite right to make this point; a rare example of a senior politician educated at a comp is Danny Alexander, Chief Secretary to the Treasury and a member of the 'quad' (gang of four) that make the tough decisions in the Coalition Government:

Born in Edinburgh, Alexander lived on the island of Colonsay as a boy before his family moved to Glengarry. He was educated at Lochaber High School, a six year comprehensive secondary school located in the town of Fort William . . (wikipedia)

I want to see all the councillors & council officers working on this to be transparent with the public and declare their relevant interest. Interest could be in various forms such as they or their family members may be Catholics, kids have been or will go to Catholic schools or they are trustees of charities. This is a fair ask.

I thought this was the case anyway, certainly with councillors. However I don't understand why you would ask all officers to declare these interests. They are employees of the council and I would have thought are supposed to be apolitical. Surely their job is to implement policies, not influence them?

It is the case with the councillors, as well as others, like the two Parent Governor Representative on the Education and Children?s Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee who have already declared that they support the RISC campaign.

akhan, if you think that a particular councillor has not declared a relevant interest then you should raise it with Democratic Services (see council website for contact details). However, I think the legal position is that there is no requirement for councillors to declare their religion. Just because somebody has a certain religion, practising or otherwise, you can't assume that they have particular opinions, or are representing the doctrine of that religion in their decisions. Where councillors have children at local Catholic schools, or are governors at those schools, they already declare their interest.

Officers aren't required to declare any interests, as far as I'm aware.

p.s. Here's a link to the relevant section of the council website.

I do, wholeheartedly agree that it is important that councillors are honest and declare their interest.

I was disturbed to see that Councillor Stephen Knight, who is leader of the Lib Dems has signed the RISC petition, which rules out a Catholic VA school but at the same time, at the last full council meeting was saying that no school should be ruled out prior to a full consultation

"which rules out a Catholic VA school"
It doesn't rule out a Catholic VA school with an inclusive admissions policy.

It does, in effect, rule out a Catholic VA school. I think we all know that.

Perhaps not an Academy, but given that the RISC petition talks of not wanting Catholic children to be prioritised at all (and 50% would be, even with an Academy) I'm not sure that RISC support your view BayJay.

In terms of a VA school, on the RISC website it dismisses this because "Catholic Voluntary Aided schools set their own admissions policies"

Seenbutnotheard, I don't speak for RISC, but I expect you're right that their official line would be that only a 100% inclusive admissions policy would do. However, I'm equally sure that many (though I don't know how many) of their supporters would be satisfied with less. There are black and white and all shades of grey on both sides, and some of the shades of grey overlap between the two campaigns.

The point I am making BayJay, is by Councillor Knight, and others signing up to the RISC campaign it is not difficut to see why many Catholics (and others) feel that he has made his mind up already.

That in itself, is fine, many people are clear about what they would like to see happen on both sides already, but I found his speech at the council meeting to be a little less than honest.

I am hoping, like you are I'm sure, that the true views of all will have the opportunity to be expressed within the consultation.

Well the local Lib Dems have made their position of prioritising a community school quite clear, though officially they would still favour a Catholic school in the future. They didn't say what type of Catholic school though. As we know, Vince Cable's view is that it should be a 50:50 Academy. I imagine that among the ranks of the local Lib Dems there are variations of opinion, and Cllr Knight's is reflected in the fact that he has signed the RISC petition. There are a few other Lib Dem councillors who've signed it too. However, there's at least one Lib Dem councillor who is a governor of a Catholic primary school. I think ChrisSquire mentioned in the past that they decide on their policies by voting.

Has everyone had notification of the Linked School Policy consultation via their schools yet? I know that the council has written to all of the schools asking for the information to be passed on. A friend with children at Stanley had a brief two-liner in their newsletter, and another at St James' has had nothing yet. My own children's school sent out a copy of the council's own introduction to the consultation, and a link to the relevant bit of the council's website.

I have been informed by my councillor that it is the Liberal Democrat policy at the national level that all new faith schools should be inclusive - they want pupils to choose schools and not the other way around. That is also a core component of the coalition agreement. Chris maybe could you please share more details on the Lib Dem policy.

It is also what we are seeing in the form of 2 new CoE inclusive schools in London 1) Secondary: schools.london.anglican.org/119/north-ealing-church-of-england-academy-necea and 2) Primary: www.stlukesschool.org.uk/. This clearly shows that faith schools can successfully incorporate inclusive admissions. Further BayJay I believe that in the earlier thread you also posted examples of inclusive Catholic schools that have opened in the UK.

Inclusiveness is not just about pupils admissions but also staff recruitment and career development. Some of the teachers, I have spoken to are concerned about employment opportunities in the current economic climate.

I have respect for faith schools - they are an integral part of our history and have specialised in the delivery of education, however in our diverse society enocurage them to be inclusive.

I supported the inclusive school petition as it is is entirely consistent with having a faith including Catholic school that is inclusive in Richmond. My personal belief and what I have gathered from many others is that the inclusive model is healthier for community cohesion in Richmond.

Well said Jeev.

Here is some information about the Lib Dem national policy from ChrisSquire's local LibDem website.

Jeev, I respect your views, but I don't agree.

I think that inclusive policy in Richmond needs to be seen in a wider remit than this individual school.

Catholic children have no choice but to leave this borough to continue their education within a school which meets their faith needs, and, as we have heard this will become more and more difficult in the coming years.

I understand that not everyone sees the need for a faith school, and this, in itself is fine given that there are seven non-faith schools already in the borough.

I am aware that in some areas of the country, the only choice available for parents is a faith school and if this were the case in Richmond I would struggle more to defend my position. But this is not the case here, is it?

The Clifden site will be a new school in an area where there are already great schools available. The RISC petition talks of a Catholic VA school excluding 90% population, but this would be the case of any school that was going to be catchment led too would it not?

"but this would be the case of any school that was going to be catchment led too would it not?"
No its different. If I really, really wanted to get my children into (for instance) Orleans Park badly enough I could sell my little terraced house on the other side of Twickenham and buy or rent an even smaller house, or more likely a flat, in St Margarets. It would be an extreme thing to do, and I would be competing with others doing the same thing, but nobody would tell me I couldn't do it on the basis of my religion. I would be exercising a choice. However if I wanted to get my children into a 100% VA school at Clifden there wouldn't be anything that I could do about it because I'm not Catholic. That represents no choice. Do you see? I can't 'choose' to be a Catholic.

I can certainly see a strong commitment to a Catholic school, and a wish not to have to travel. Not sure the numbers would be enough without some coming in from other boroughs though. It depends on whether the Council sees this as a priority.

There are ways round proximity as the only criteria - e.g. as a boys' school it could have or would need to have as wide a catchment as possible. Although random allocation may not be that popular with parents.

Apart from inclusive admissions and recruitment - does anyone know any other differences in governance between a VA school and an academy?

So it is ok if the 'choice' is there for those that can afford to make it so?

We are talking about the black hole that is 1:7 of our primary schools being Catholic and trying to redress the balance of 0:8 (or soon to be 0:9?) of our secondary schools being so.

"So it is ok if the 'choice' is there for those that can afford to make it so?"
No, its not "ok". Its competitive and unpleasant. If all of our secondary schools were evenly spread out, and of consistent quality, it wouldn't be necessary. In my view, that is the ideal that we should all be working towards. However, in the meantime, creating a school that people can't even 'aspire' to get into just makes matters worse for the majority. Non-Catholics who live in the vicinity of Clifden and Waldegrave can 'aspire' to get their children into Orleans/Teddington/Tiffin/Eton, and if they're determined enough they can do something about turning their aspiration into reality. However, they can't 'aspire' to be Catholic any more than they can 'aspire' to give their boys a sex-change and get them into Waldegrave.

"We are talking about the black hole that is 1:7 of our primary schools being Catholic"
I think that argument is about as logical as saying that because 1-in-8 of our secondary schools is girls-only, then 1-in-8 of our primaries should be girls-only too. Our primaries are the way they are for understandable historical reasons. If the system was being set up from scratch, nobody would be advocating that 1-in-7 primary schools should be for Catholics only. We have to create new schools based on how the world is today, not how it was in the past.

"does anyone know any other differences in governance between a VA school and an academy?"
I'm not aware of any. The only reason I've heard cited for setting this school up as VA is because of the admissions rules for new Academies. I expect it would convert from VA to Academy status within a year or two of opening, in line with the council's policy to encourage all schools to be academies. If it does that then it gets to keep whatever admissions policy is set up under its VA status.

BayJay you are woefully out of touch if you think that for most of us, to be able to move to get into the school we want is something that anyone can 'aspire to'.

This argument, for most Catholics, is not about a 'good school'. It is about our children having the opportunity to continue their education in a Catholic school. I know that you don't beleive that - I'm not trying to change your mind, just stating a fact as I see it.

Historical reasons for schools are important I think, this new school as the opportunity to redress the balance without having a negative effect on the school choices that others all ready have.
There is no way that you can say that if the system was being started up from scratch that "nobody would be advocating that 1-in-7 primary schools should be for Catholics only"

But then, I think you already know that.

It's good that you would support the school even it is wasn't 'outstanding'. The choice has been further restricted by the link policy but many Catholics getting a place out of borough have found 'outstanding' schools (and a bigger proportion staying in state schools than going private compared to the local average). They would need to support this school 100%. I don't think they are immune to 'market' pressures.