New Secondary Schools for Richmond 2

[BayJay]

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

Re multiple submissions - I have asked the council about this - an outside agency are collating the responses and have a programme to track the URLs (or something like that) so that they can discount multiple entries.

I wonder if Risc are worried about what the consultation will show?

seenbutnotheard The Liberal Democrats share the concerns of many in the community that the Councils figures are based on a number of optimistic assumptions in order to justify their current proposals. Lottie has already highlighted some of the risk factors, and the assumption that there will be a free school, for which Clifden Road would be the preferred site.

Indeed it was because members of our community bought to Councillor Hodgins attention just how many parents in the borough have felt forced to go private (or if they couldn't afford it move away) because they do not have the choice of a good local school (making Richmond the borough with the largest proportion by far of children going to private schools, even compared to more affluent boroughs) that the Council had to concede that if the schools improve there would be a significant increase in the number of parents choosing state over private for their children. Ironically this effect will be most seen when, hopefully, Richmond Park Academy is turned around, the very school that children from the roads around Clifden College will have to travel to in under three years to fulfill their role as commodities to fill up the academies, a role the children of Catholic parents are to be given the priviledge of being exempted from.

My husband is Catholic and went to a leading Benedictine School, and at primary level when we were not offered a place at any of the three schools within half a mile we were constantly being reminded by his Catholic peers that we could get a place at one of the Catholic schools if we just used his connections in the church. How can that be fair, let alone Christian?

Seenbutnotheard have richmond and merton created a big legal team anticipating the increased workload to handle the councils mess?

Twickwnham station, catholic va school, FSI .....

seenbutnotheard, the only way of tracking multiple responses would be to detect multiple IP addresses. I know they weren't doing that because my husband and I both submitted a response from the same computer with no problem at all.

I'm not too worried about the multiple entry side of things, so long as the council honours its pledge not to base their decision on numbers.

I don't know many people who responded to the Diocesan consultation - it wasn't really marketted at the wider community. Lots of people I know have responded to the council's consultation. Some people will have responded to both. Some very dedicated people will have responded to all three, council, diocesan pre-consultation, and diocesan main consultation. Does that mean that their opinion is 3 times more important than people who only responded to one of the consultations? I don't think so.

The decision should be based on the quality of the arguments, and the law, not on numbers. We know that there is a significant swell of strong opinion on both sides. Many people who feel strongly on this issue won't have even known that the consultation was taking place if they aren't a) on a Catholic school/church mailing list b) on the RISC mailing list c) avid readers of the RTT/Mumsnet/Twickerati etc. That's a lot of people whose opinion won't be counted. I speak to people all the time who ask me for an update about the schools situation, and they have no idea about the consultation. People have busy lives, and that is why sometimes they take their eyes off the ball and get things they don't want.

BayJay - I know that entries could be made from the same computer - this is why I checked this with the council - I was told that multiple submissions would be spotted (I am sure you are right, with IP adresses) and that unusual numbers would be discounted. I am sure that they will allow for husbands and wives using the same computer, but they will discount high numbers of entries from the same address.

You say that many did not know about the consultation - but Risc did a leaflet drop with every copy of RTT, campaigned outside of all of the primary schools, have had reams of press coverage.

Likewise, Catholic schools and churches have made people aware too. I have always said that if there is apathy within the Cathoilc community then if we have nobody to blame but ourselves if the school does not go ahead - clearly Risc do not see this in the same way.

clearly Risc do not see this in the same way
Really? I'm fairly sure RISC would agree that "if there is apathy within the [general] community then we [the community] have nobody to blame but ourselves if the [VA] school does ... go ahead". That is why they have done lots of campaigning, to spread the word, and try to level the playing field a bit against the well established communication links within the Catholic community. The numbers of responses on either side of the debate will (unfortunately) depend as much on the comms strategies of the two campaigns as the quality of their arguments and true community opinion.

Either way, the new law needs to be clarified, because it will have national implications if it isn't. Even if 100% of the local population supported the VA school (and they don't by the way), the law would still need to be clarified.

The trouble with your argument, seenbutnotheard, is that you fail to appreciate that far from being the underdog - the Catholics are, and always were, the odds on favourites to win this battle.

RISC have been in the unenviable position of having to campaign on the negative. It's easy to see why a Catholic parent would be keen for a new local secondary choice for their children. Indeed, although I'm not 100% certain, I'm pretty sure that I signed the original petition calling for the school myself.

For the majority of non-Catholics, the new Catholic school won't directly affect them. Either they're in catchment of one of the highly rated secondaries or they already have accepted that they'd be having to move house, go private or hope the new Academies have been turned around. Although they might not agree in principal to yet another selective faith school (and I've yet to come across any non-religious person who actually agrees with faith school selection policies, even if they're pretty apathetic about them!) - they will often stop short of being seen as the killjoy and trying to ruin someone else's party.

BayJay's free school campaign, on the other hand, has been eminently more successful. That's because it's offering people something positive. It's not asking people to stand against another group. It's asking what they want and they've jumped up in excitement at the idea. And I'd make a pretty educated guess that if the community was asked if it prefers the idea of an inclusive free school or a Catholic school on Clifden Road it would be the former. But sadly, this isn't what they're being asked.

I am pleased to hear that Risc will give weight to public opinion, really I am, as it has appeared (to me at least) at times to have been a bit of a one man (or at least one man and his small group) campaign.

It will be interesting to see what the consultation shows.

As to the Judicial review - I agree actually, that if we are going to get into legal battles, let's do it sooner, rather than later. Risc and the BHA were always going to take this route if things did not appear to be going their way. If it is shown to be legal though - I hope that Risc then step back.

If the legal advice from the council and diocese is that this school is lawful, I would be surprised if it backs down at this stage (particularly if the consultation is positive) BHA would then, I believe, have to pay Richmond and the Diocese back any legal costs if the Judicial reivew finds in their favour.

Why would RISC step back? I'm curious.

The arguments of the ACCORD coalition aren't going to be going away, you know. And whilst I don't think they will win this particular fight, I'm still sure they'll win the war...

On that RISC leaflet, by the way, where was it distributed? I didn't see it in my end of the borough. In fact, we never had a delivery of the RTT until about 6 weeks ago. It costs 55p in the shops - I doubt many people do buy it, in fact.

BayJay and I were having a discussion about apathy and listening to the local community LittleMrsMuppet.

Let's say we have a scenario of little Catholic support for the school on top of losing a Judicial review - you would expect me to listen to that - Yes? To carry on campaigning for THIS school, would seen pretty futile.

I am hoping that Risc, if the consultations show that the community do want this school and if there are either no grounds for Judicial Review, or if it does not find in their favour will do likewise.

I do not doubt that the BHA and Mr Rodell have an ongoing agenda - I have just been told by a friend that his original facebook group was called "learning together - no new faith schools for Richmond" I am sure that the national campaign will continue - but, I hope, not at the expense of our local community.

muminlondon The RISC paid for the RTT to drop leaflets with the paper in those parts of TW1 that they deliver to, supposedly for reasons of commercial confidentiality they wouldn't say which streets they were, more likely they didn't know! When we queried it we suddenly find ourselves getting a free RTT again. Some individuals dropped leaflets in the streets on the boundary with TW1. Such a shame there wasn't a network of churches, schools, charities and lobbying bodies through which RISC could have spread their message / exerted influence on the decision makers ....

Seenbutnotheard I do not completely buy into that logic . Apart from legal view, one can't just look into no of responses . Quality or arguments have been key especially around the need to a) have 150 free school places b) more school places earlier than councils predictions c) out of borough students backing out etc etc

These are big risks and it would be really shallow to ignore them and just make a decision based on no of responses only.
The council has thus far failed to convince most people of their plans and predictions .

I see from todays RTT that the Catholic community are again resorting, as seenbutnotheard is doing here to personal attacks on Jeremy Rodell and the RISC. When they actually address the real concerns of the local community in Twickenham about the inequality in school provision they will experience when this school opens, perhaps by considering the sensible solution put forward by our MP and the Education Minister then they might experience a little more sympathy/ support from the wider community.

Leaving aside politics, legality, principle of non discrimination in school classroom - how can it be fair to have the an exclusive Catholic school at the expense of others ??

Not sure where I have resorted to a personal attack - I have simply stated what Mr Rodell stands for - I don't think it is a secret that he is chair of the south west london Humanists is it? Or that he started a campaign against a Catholic secondary school at least as far back as 2010.

I don't see that as a personal attack any more than saying that, yes, I am a Catholic and have been supporting a Catholic secondary school since before the last election - hence me asking prospective conservatives and libdems where they stood on the matter. (both parties said they were keen for a Catholic school btw)

I have plenty of non-Catholic friends who support Risc, and just as many who support the addition of a Cathoilc secondary to Richmond's community of schools.

I also have friends who have told me that they no longer support Risc, particularly now that they have such a close alliegence to BHA who want to get rid of all faith schools.
They see this as a conflict, given that they their children attend faith schools.

as it has appeared (to me at least) at times to have been a bit of a one man (or at least one man and his small group) campaign
Seenbutnotheard, I find that really strange. My experience is quite the opposite. Presumably that reflects the different communities we inhabit. Most of my contacts are in the local CofE primaries and community primaries in Twickenham - the ones where parents are most directly affected by the loss of the Linked Schools policy, the bulge of primary children coming through the system, and lack of choice of secondary school. They are certainly very interested in the Clifden Road issue. They don't always understand what they can do about it, they don't always read every email to the end, and follow all the links, and there's a certain amount of apathy in assuming other people will do the bulk of the campaigning on their behalf, but they're certainly interested in the outcome, because they will be directly affected by it.

seenbutnotheard as in you are trying to focus the debate on the person not the issues. We could all wade in to question Lord True's motives on the matter, the unease of other Councillor's with the stance they are being made to take is palpable at meetings here in this community, I think they know it is going to be costly at the ballot box. However I respect that he is married to a Catholic, patron of Catholic charities and sent his daughter to a RC school. It is the fact that he is trying to railroad through the proposals for Catholic parents to be given the priviledge of choices he is denying to other parents, priviledging one community over another that RISC is questioning and challenging. Actually it is irrelevent whether one community is Catholic and the other not, it could be that one community was humanist and the other not, or one rich and the other not(actually based on the free school meal indicator that is true), or indeed one white and the other not. This is not about minority rights as True and Samuels claim, it is about minority priviledge. As I wrote before there are a number of concessions the church could make to recognise that children in our community have the same rights as Catholic children to respect, indeed love.

seenbutnotheard - I apologise for intruding on what you clearly considered to be a private conversation with BayJay.

That aside, I am wondering from your last post how many of your non-Catholic friends who are so in favour of this Catholic secondary actually have children attending non-Catholic schools? It's just I know quite a number of non-Catholics around here, and I've yet to come across one of them in favour of it. Some are neutral and couldn't care less either way, but that's about as pro as I can find!

I'm sure you could get all sorts of people who could collect together, campaign hard and be far from apathetic about setting up a school that would favour their own families. Especially if they could prioritise entry to people like them. Perhaps a school set up for Lensbury Club members? Thankfully, quite apart from such a thing being illegal and imoral, no one would try to do something so silly because they know that non-members would be up in arms at such an idea.

So just because a vast majority of people already using Catholic primaries are strongly in favour of a fully selective new Catholic secondary - it doesn't mean that the rest of the community will think it's right.

This school has the potential to give the borough something that it is currently missing. You may not agree that that missing thing is needed, but many, many people do.

I don't expect everyone to understand why this is important to Catholic families. Why we want a school with God at the centre. You don't have to understand, but to deny a child that opportunity, just because you do not want it is not right. In my opinion.

As for the politics in this - have I have said many, many times before this school was originally requested by the Libdems, way back in 2005, and then again in 2006.

I would strongly refute suggestions that these plans have anything to do with exclusivity and privilege as some would have people believe, this is about widening the diversity of schools within the borough, and indeed sits well with the councils own Equality and Diversity policy statement.

The over-subscription criteria is one which demonstrates that this truly will be a 'borough school' as it will welcome children from across the borough who worship in their local communities. This will not be a school which serves children who are just lucky enough to live on it's doorstep. It is interesting that this school is being supported by Catholic families when they do not have the guarantee of entry - if the school is oversubscribed there will be a random lottery so no individual child (unless LAC or SEN) has an automatic place - the Catholic community recognise this as fair.
This is the case for my children, despite the fact that it will be their closest secondary school.

A Catholic secondary school on the Clifden site would promote opportunities for children across the borough, not just for the residents living on its doorstep, who are already serviced by Orleans Park School .
For many opposed to the school (if they are not ideologically opposed to a Catholic School ) the issue is one of quality and their fears that the under-subscribed academies are not where they wish their children to attend.

I am aware that the council is working hard to improve the outcomes and reputation of the already established Academies as this is what would make a real difference to all children living in the borough.

On the other hand, you can be sure, that regardless of the academic achievement of the current schools, Catholic parents would still be petitioning for an in-borough Catholic secondary school and supporting these proposals.

What random lottery for oversubscription!!! That is totally factually incorrect. You should check the Catholic VA school proposals again ( on the Diocese website as well as on my posts a few weeks ago). Its completely in favour of Catholics discriminating against all non catholics including for children requiring care - the most vulnerable ones !

Yes it will give a lot to Catholic group improving their choice and diversity. Not for others ! Not only is your group failing to live up to its promise of supporting the academies but also seeking an unfair privilege.

I may be tired but I doubt that places being oversubscribed at a catholic school will be an issue of the magnitude of other general entry schools.

I don't have an issue with faith schools per se. I do have an issue with the idea of the opportunity to have a new school in a borough with issues on school places being given over to one particular faith.

Keep your hat on akhan

As you well know, it is a random lottery for all Catholic children who worship in any of the Borough's parishes.

One of the consequences of this will be that all of the places should go to Richmond children, not 'out of borough children' as Risc would have us believe.

I think what RISC have actually said is that the admissions policy will prioritise out-of-borough Catholics over in-borough non-Catholics. That is true.

Akhan, the random lottery that seenbutnotheard is talking about is implied by criterion 3 and 4.

Seenbutnotheard, the next 3 categories (5,6,7) would effectively prioritise out-of-borough Catholics and other religious denominations, over non-religious children living close to the school (who would be in category 8).

Nobody knows how many of these categories will actually be necessary, but its a fairly safe bet that nobody will be getting in under category 8.

"I don't expect everyone to understand why this is important to Catholic families"

Do you really, seriously, mean that? You don't expect the non-Catholic majority to understand?

Trust me, understand, is exactly what you need them to do.

And random lottery, where-ever did you pick that up from? Apart from which imagine how daft it would be if a Catholic living on the school's doorstep was denied a place at the expense of a Catholic living in Barnes. I thought the key argument was that Catholics didn't want long journeys...