New Secondary Schools for Richmond 2

[BayJay]

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

Chris -Its unfortunate that a single post of yours without reference to what was going on the thread was used by Lord True to score points .

Although I do not always agree with the Lib Dems view , I would not want to shoot you - the messenger . Grateful for all the info you have shared on this forum . I am sure everone will agree that your posts have been highly informative

Chris, our local secondaries are all proposing Sixth forms with a capacity between 240 and 300 pupils. The graph in Malcolm Eady's report defines a small Sixth Form as less than 100 pupils, so his case is not proven I'm afraid.

I don't know where the graph came from. It claims to be OFSTED data, so it may be compiled from data in this OFSTED report which compares the effectiveness of large versus small sixth forms. It was a small study, covering just 25 institutions....

"These included nine school sixth forms, seven general further education colleges and nine sixth form colleges. These providers represented a range of contexts nationally, including those in urban and rural locations. Currently, no single unified system exists to measure achievement across all three types of post-16 provider for all types of level 3 provision. Consequently, no direct comparison is possible between the value-added or progress indices used for some types of provision and the success rates used for others. Inspectors used their professional judgement, together with providers? own analyses, to evaluate the available performance data and make an overall assessment of students? achievement. The survey found that achievement overall, was strongest in the sixth form colleges visited. Variations in progress and attainment within providers, however, were as great as those between them."

It doesn't sound like very strong evidence.

Also, I've just read the Sutton Trust report that you linked to. Although your quotes are correct, they're taken out of context. When they are put in context they actually don't back up the Lib Dems' case....

Having disproportionately large sixth-forms may benefit the performance of students in these particular schools
This was a study of just 5 particularly succesful sixth forms. The purpose of the study was to see what their success factors were. They were deliberately chosen for their large size so that they would have enough teachers/students to interview. The only point they are making here is the study's results may be skewed by the size of the schools, and may not be applicable across the full range of schools.

"Research evidence shows that a larger sixth-form is associated with better results while a small sixth-form appears to have a negative effect."
You've taken your quote from the Principal Findings section. However, the research is referenced in the body of the document in a fuller and much more revealing way ..... "there is research evidence to show that having a large sixth-form is associated with better than expected results and a small sixth-form ? or no sixth-form at all ? appears to have a negative effect (Robinson and Smithers 1999)."

Notice the "or no sixth-form at all" bit?

"The importance of size of sixth form needs to be taken into account in any future arrangements for post-16 education. In relation to the particular issues with which this report is concerned, a further proliferation of small sixth-forms would seem undesirable"
This "policy implication" does not seem to be a finding of this small 5-school study. The authors seem to be referring to the results of the Robinson & Smithers research when they make this recommendation. That reference is given as Robinson, P. and Smithers, A. 1999. ?Should the sexes be separated for secondary education ?comparisons of single-sex and co-educational schools??, Research Papers in Education 14 (1), 23-49. If anyone can track down an abstract then I'd be interested to read it.

I found the abstract of the Robinson & Smithers paper and it doesn't mention anything about comparing large and small sixth forms. It would be interesting to read the full paper to see exactly what the policy recommendation of the Sutton Trust was based on. Here is the abstract: www.eric.ed.gov:80/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?nfpb=true&&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ590582&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ590582. I'm on my mobile so can't link it more neatly I'm afraid.

Here is the text of the Robinson and Smithers paper. Unless I missed it there is nothing in there about larger sixth forms doing better than smaller ones. There is a passing reference in paragraph 17 to schools without a sixth form performing less well than schools that do have sixth forms, though the reasons for this aren't explored.

So its a bit of a mystery why the Sutton Trust paper says "And there is research evidence to show that having a large sixth-form is associated with better than expected results and a small sixth-form ? or no sixth-form at all ? appears to have a negative effect (Robinson and Smithers 1999)."

It does cite another paper too, so maybe that one will have something a bit more concrete in it: "Spielhofer et al.?s (2002) analysis confirms this evidence and suggests that the threshold at which students appear to benefit from a sixth-form ranged between 110-180 students. The larger the sixth-form, the larger the benefits."

The Spielhofer et al paper seems to be at the root of the idea that large sixth forms are better than small ones. Page 26 has the details.

The main finding is that schools with large sixth forms perform better (at GCSE) than schools without any sixth form, which in turn perform better than schools with small sixth forms. Their definition of a large sixth form is one that has more than about 110 pupils. Our proposed local sixth forms would therefore be classed as large sixth forms.

The research did not compare A Level results between small and large sixth forms.

And of course the paper doesn't say anything about whether its the small sixth form that causes the poor performance at GCSE or (more likely) the poor performance at GCSE that causes the small sixth form.

As you say the community schools plus Christ's are proposing sixth forms of 240 to 300, while the academies have applied already for sixth forms of 150 to 180 (RPA, Twickenham Academy and Hampton Academy).

I did find a paper from the Association of Colleges analysing 2008 results data. It found that sixth forms of 250 or more got better results.

But the research was done to promote colleges so was perhaps biased! There seems to be no distinction between a college of more than 2,000 students and a sixth form of 250 students.

As mentioned, Richmond College's average point score per student is 698 (4055 students) and Hounslow Manor School's average is 699 (87 students). So no difference in results, but probably in number of courses offered, numbers of students per course and perhaps economies of scale. And schools may be competing with each other for students.

Thanks for that link muminlondon. I agree the content of the research doesn't justify any conclusion that colleges get better results than sixth forms of the size that are being proposed locally for our maintained schools.

It also suggests that our own sixth form college is performing below average for its size category.

It would be nice to know the number of schools in each category, to see if the results were statistically significant.

I have heard many supporters of the proposed Catholic School in Clifden Road voice the opinion, like Mir4, that children in Central Twickenham, the "Jacobs" will have continue to have the choice of many good local schools. It is wishful thinking, It is not an opinion shared by Councillors, including Councillor Hodgins, or the Education Department. They are clear that Twickenham is to become a black hole of provision in terms of being served by a community school as catchment areas shrink with the bulge in pupil numbers particularly in East Twickenham. In the next couple of years the Jacobs will basically be treated as a commodity by the Council to justify their investment by filling up surplus spaces in Twickenham Academy and, in under 3 years when that fills up, according to their forecast, Richmond Park Academy. How can it be fair that Sean's mother has the choice of local schools, Catholic Schools outside the borough (and doubtless if he gets a place at Oratory won't even consider a new unproved school in Clifden Road whatever the commute) whilst parents in our community have NO choice but to send their children on a 9 minute walk to the station (sorry Mir4 the 5 mins was wishful thinking too, even at a brisk trot as opposed to a teenage lope, being local we know these things) a 20 minute train ride and 25 minute walk (no buses). It is unchristian to seek to exclude, especially children, Christ set us a clear example on that, and to seek priviledge and that is why I support RISC regardless of my faith or politics.

I am agnostic about the 6th-form size issue. What is clear is that the new 6th-forms will be competing in an educational market place where there is already over-capacity and successful players are in a strong position to attract the small pool of strong pupils who will get the good results that everyone is judging them by. So it is inevitable that some of the new 6th forms will be relatively unsuccessful and they may find themselves harshly judged for it. Or they may do well in some subjects only as this anecdote shows:

I have a male friend who teaches history and politics at a non-selective girls private school in another borough. He is dedicated to his profession and his pupils and talks at length about his work. So I have, willy-nilly, learnt a good deal about it. He is an examiner and maker and has carefully studied what is required to get a good grade and is able to prepare his pupils very thoroughly so that they do very well. However, when it comes to choosing ?A? level subjects he loses a lot of his GCSE pupils to the geography teacher, also male but young and handsome, whereas he is middle-aged and was once told that he had a ?good face for radio?! Sadly his teaching doesn?t match his attractiveness and the geography grades are disappointing.

This is frustrating too to the head teacher, who is keen, of course, to build up a strong 6th-form. But there?s no remedy except to encourage the geography teacher to seek promotion elsewhere and replace him with someone at least as old and ugly as my friend.

It will take some years for the teachers of the new 6th forms to get up to speed to match what my friend does; some of them never will - he says he sees scripts from pupils who have clearly not been taught a thing about how to write an essay, the main skills on which they are being judged.

Press release from RISC:
Catholic Schools Case Goes To Court: Richmond Inclusive Schools Campaign (RISC) announced today that the long-running argument about the Council?s plan for an exclusive Voluntary Aided Catholic secondary school is going to court.

In February, RISC pointed out to the Council that, under the new Education Act, a council that thinks it needs a new school must first seek proposals for an Academy/Free School, where there is a limit of 50 % faith-based admissions. But the Council is continuing to support proposals for a Voluntary Aided Catholic secondary school so that up to 100 % of admissions can be faith-based. The Council?s view is that the Act still enables them to do that. The issue will now be decided in a Judicial Review.
The case is being brought jointly by RISC and the British Humanist Association (BHA). BHA Chief Executive Andrew Copson explained why it had decided to become involved:

?We have seen repeatedly how religious providers largely avoid competition when establishing state-funded schools, and instead make arrangements directly with local authorities to open schools without local people being offered any alternative. These approaches to local authorities have always been successful. If the practice is not challenged, we face a future of discriminatory state-funded religious schools being opened without the same rules applying to then as to inclusive schools. In an ideal education system, there would be no state-funded religious discrimination at all, but for as long as it is unfortunately permitted, at least new schools should be opened as a result of fair competition on a level playing field.?

?BHA respects the fact that RISC is broadly-based and includes many people with religious convictions as well as the non-religious. We also recognise that the main driver for the campaign is not to oppose faith schools generally, but to ensure that new state-funded schools in Richmond do not discriminate against local children on the basis of their parents? religion, or increase religious segregation. The BHA's own objects include the promotion of equality and non-discrimination, and of understanding between people holding religious and non?religious beliefs. The BHA is taking up this case because of its national implications, but we look forward to working with supporters of RISC, and with Accord, on the basis of this shared understanding.?

RISC spokesman Jeremy Rodell welcomed the BHA?s decision: ?We know that the Council and the Catholic Diocese are playing the system to secure the most exclusive type of Catholic secondary school possible. And it has become increasingly clear that the Council has no intention of changing its plans, whatever the outcome of its recent consultation. Only a legal challenge will make any difference, but RISC does not have the resources to mount one. So we very much welcome the BHA?s involvement.?

?RISC remains an inclusive campaign for inclusive schools. There is no change to our position on faith schools generally, which is to focus on whether they are genuinely inclusive. That is why we have not objected to the inclusive primary Free School proposed by the Church of England in Hampton. But the Voluntary Aided secondary school the Council and the Diocese propose is being set up to ensure that 100 % of the pupils are children of Catholics, reducing to a minimum of 94 % after 7 years. Others need not apply. That can?t be right.?

Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain MBE, the Chair of the Accord Coalition which formally supports RISC, commented, ?We welcome today's news that the Richmond Inclusive Schools Campaign and the BHA are to take legal action on this matter. Accord does not oppose ?faith? schools, but has specific aims for legislative reform, including opposing all faith-based admissions. Any moves that will serve to limit religious discrimination must surely gain support from all those who value an inclusive state-funded education system.?

Here are today?s statements on the legal challenge from the BHA, the Diocese and the Council.

Chris also a national news now www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/council-faces-legal-action-over-plans-to-set-up-catholic-schools-without-inviting-rival-bids-7637187.html

Strange response from council saying the judicial review is premature before 24 may. Are they putting foot in their mouth by suggesting legal claim will be valid after that date ?

Jeev, I think they mean its premature to challenge a decision that hasn't been made yet. However, presumably RISC would say its the process they're challenging rather than the outcome.

Wikipedia on Judicial Review has:

' . . Grounds for review:
. . Lord Diplock summarised the grounds for reversing an administrative decision by way of judicial review as follows:

• Illegality
• Irrationality (Unreasonableness)
• Procedural impropriety The first two grounds are known as substantive grounds of judicial review because they relate to the substance of the disputed decision. Procedural impropriety is a procedural ground because it is aimed at the decision-making procedure rather than the content of the decision itself. The three grounds are mere indications: the same set of facts may give rise to two or all three grounds for judicial review . . '

Rosa Curling from RISC/BHA?s solicitors Leigh Day & Co said today: ?We are concerned the Council is attempting to avoid its legal obligations in relation to the opening of these two new Catholic schools. The Council appears to be of the view that it can open these new schools without holding a competition or inviting proposals from a range of different providers.

?Despite widespread local opposition, the Council appears to have decided that it can bypass its legal obligations and simply approve the Diocese's proposals to open two, selective state-funded Catholic schools. We have advised our clients that this is incorrect and the Council's actions are unlawful."

See you in court, Lord Nick!

"despite widespread local oppostition" - will be interesting to see what the consultation has to say about that.

The pre-statutory consultation is reported to have been 95% in favour of the school.

Not that for one second I think that the BHA would be concerned with what the community actually want.

Maybe Risc, if it was interested in how the community feel, could ask it's supporters what they make of the proposition of two schools (within less than half a mile of each other) one being the VA Catholic school and the other not.

I know of several who have now withdrawn their support of Risc. I am sure that more will follow.

To be clear, the Egerton Rd school is a 'feasibility study' rather than a proposition.

Seenbutnotheard: It is true, and no cause for shame, that BHA, which ?promotes Humanism, represents the non-religious, supports those who wish to live humanist lives, campaigns for a secular state, challenges religious privilege, and promotes equal treatment in law and policy of everyone regardless of religion or belief? is only concerned about the lawfulness of the Council?s actions and not at all with what the various ?communities? that have a claim on the Clifden Road site want or how to make a wise choice between their claims.

This is as it should be: BHA is a national pressure group, not a local community group or political party. In any case, do we not all care about the law of the land? Surely none of us would wish to see the Council acting unlawfully, even if thereby something we desired was achieved?

Seenbutnotheard It depends which community's wishes you feel should be acknowledged. Those who support the proposal for a Catholic School on the Clifden site seem entirely deaf to the community it will be at the centre of. The prestatutory consultation you refer to as 95% in favour was conducted by the Catholic Church, and the question asked was were you in favour of a Catholic School in the borough, not were you in favour of a Catholic School on the Clifden site. Many of us, and indeed the Libdems would not deny Catholic parents the priviledge of the choice of a Catholic School but only once the children of Central Twickenham have the right to a place at a local inclusive school, something the current proposals will deny them within three years, even according to the Council's figures. That there is widespread community support for a community school for Central Twickenham was demonstrated by the ease with which the free school proposal was able to provide evidence of demand in excess of that required for it's submission for a Free School. I have a feeling that if the Councils consultation had demonstrated 95% of the community in favour of the proposed Catholic School Lord True would have been shouting it from the rooftops and possibly doing a little dance waving his ochre corderoy trousers above his head. I can assure you that the community of Central Twickenham welcome BHAs assistance whatever our own faith because it seems the only hope of securing for our children the same level of respect that Lord True and Councillor Samuels appear intent on priviledging, as some sort of personal legacy, for the children of Catholic parents. Perhaps you could ask your supporters what they make of the proposition of two schools (within less than half a mile of each other) one being the Inclusive Free School serving the community on the Clifden Road site and the other,a Catholic Academy, as required under the legislation, on the Egerton Road site, should it prove feasible. Seems a very fair compromise since the existing diocean schools have enough places to reserve for the Richmond Parishes in the immediate future until the bulge of Catholic pupils in the Ealing and Hounslow boroughs start to put a pressure on places.

Its a real shame that the Council has taken the law in its own hands in this matter. The local community wants an inclusive free school at Clifden rd and would not object to a Catholic academy proposal at another site.
However as Keynes once said " The difficulty lies not in the new ideas, but in escaping from the old ones "

Anyone know whether the BHA have actualy been granted a judicial review yet? Just because they want one, it does not mean that they will get one.

Copthallresident - even the LibDems say that they would mothball the Clifden Road site until it is needed in 2016, so, in effect, the Catholic community could have it's school in 2013 and the school on the college site would be ready, for when it is needed three years later.

There is the chance for most people to be happy - it seems that some are intent on wasting tax payers money to ensure that only their own voices are heard.

As for the results of the consultation - we will have to wait and see, but, if there is a significant majority in favour of the Catholic school, surely, given that we are a minority, that would account for something?

In terms of the legality - I am confident that the council and diocese have had legal advice - if the proposed school is legal, and if the majory of respondents to the consultation support it then of course I want it to go ahead.

I thought that the politicians agreed that they could only do without a community secondary until 2016 if 150 Free School secondary places were created in the meantime and so those need to be in the bag first. Apart from the Maharishi's rather dubious bid for about half of those places in Hampton, there is only the bid for a 150 place Twickenham Free School under consideration for secondary places and there is no adequate site for that other than Clifden. It is supposed to be opening in 2013 so it can't wait for Egerton Road. They really do need to take a deep breath and suspend making any decisions until they know whether any free schools are being funded, have done the study on Egerton Road, seen the results of the abolition of linked schools, found out whether Kingston is building another secondary etc.

The Council itself seems confused by the legal challenge which is not to a decision that it hasn't made yet but to the way it is going about making a decision ie. not considering all the relevant factors and options. The Council often seems confused about legal issues these days - I gather it shut its canteen and banished all its lawyers to the LB Merton so perhaps the lack of opportunity for a bit of informal advice over a coffee without being charged £xxxx per hour are affecting its performance!

Lottie - I think that BayJay has already said, further up the thread that other sites were possible for the Twickenham Free School, she just did not feel at liberty to say where they were.

Richmond and Merton have joined forces in terms of creating one large legal team to serve both boroughs - so there is more legal input, not less!

The legal challenge did look inevitable as this is very new legislation (that Lord True helped to pass!) which isn't clear and needs to be tested. But the council and diocese must have known this because of the rush to get the vote on the Clifden sale and speed of initial application to publish proposals - that certainly raises doubt in my mind. I'm guessing also that there is a time limit for a judicial review application so waiting until the May cabinet meeting might have been too late.

Also, the council consultation, although it was quite a detailed questionnaire, wasn't a ballot as it was probably easy to submit multiple applications. I didn't bother with the Catholic one.