New Secondary Schools for Richmond 2

[BayJay]

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

muminlondon - I agree that if the site is a Catholic school it will require commitment and support from the Catholic community; it might be quite a 'Leap of Faith' initially, but we Catholics are pretty good at that

As I have said on the previous thread... 'we live just around the corner from an 'outstanding' non-denominational primary and chose to go the primary attached to our Catholic Church which is 'good' rather than outstanding and a little further away.' It is not all about Outstanding Ofsted status.

As a community we will also have responsibility for helping the Diocese raise the 7 million needed to convert the buildings so demonstration of this commitment will begin far in advance of the school even opening its doors.

Seenbutnotheard, you know that I wasn't saying it is easy for people to move house to access schools. By suggesting that I was in order to belittle my argument you've chosen to ignore the point I was making. I was contrasting distance-discrimination, which affects everybody, with religious discrimination which only (in this case) affects non-Catholics. Surely you appreciate the difference?

It's hard to use analogies without being accused of trivialising things, but imagine you have a family of 10 children and very little money, just enough for the basics. One child shows a talent for music and wants piano lessons. You might choose to sell something that benefits the whole family, like the car, in order to pay for them. You might justify that on the grounds that the talented child is special and the whole family can be proud of her, but surely you would understand if the rest of the children felt that their needs were taking a lower priority?

Re the 'history' point, I think you must realise that, given the coalition policy on new faith schools, if all our schools were demolished tomorrow, and a new system put in place, it would be very different to the status quo.

I did not say that it would be easy BayJay, I used the 'aspire' description that you gave and highlighted that for most families, this is not possible.

I really do believe that the location of this school, and so the distance-discrimation is very relevant in this case as the area is already serviced by very disirable schools.

In terms of the school system being started up from scratch, again, I used your words when you said that "nobody would be advocating that 1-in-7 primary schools should be for Catholics only" - I see that you are now talking about Lib-Dem policy, rather than individuals. There are many people who would continue to advocate for Catholic Schools.

By the way, no school is for Catholics only - this would be unlawful - schools are obliged to admit children of other, or no faith if the school is undersubcribed.

Seenbutnotheard, I wasn't talking about Lib Dem policy. I was talking about the new Education Act. Nobody would be advocating Catholic-only schools because the new law sends a clear message that they are no longer to be considered as a first-choice option.

The area is only served by good schools if you have girls. If you have boys you already feel discriminated against, and so many people feel that this new school should be used to redress that.

"Catholic children have no choice but to leave this borough to continue their education within a school which meets their faith needs"

Don't be dramatic, they have choice - they have the same choice of attending the same schools as the rest of us in addition to any catholic schools they can get offers for.

They will still be catholic if they don't go to a catholic schools and I know Catholics (in my own family) who (whilst they might have preferred the choice) would be most offended at the inference that they are somehow lesser catholics for not having had a catholic education.

It what the vast majority of people of other religions do in the borough. The privilege of a catholic primary education available for historical reasons does not confer a right to a secondary education in that religion at the expense of others. I would argue (and have repeatedly) that prioritising a catholic secondary at this time is a foolish move on the part of the council.

And if better informed people than me believe that the Clifden site is not the right site for a new community school, then they shouldn't be buying it but spending their time and money on assessing the reality of what provision is needed, where its needed and when its needed. When the provision for all the boroughs children is at least adequate then they should be assessing the preferences of any minority groups (all of them).

Kewcumber, I will repeat my post to akhan earlier...

"you quite spectacularly miss the point that Catholic families want their children to continue to with their faith based education.

1:7 primary schools are Catholic. The proposal is that just 1:9 secondary schools should also be so.

It is not the case that this just solves ?our? problem ? if Catholic children can not get into schools outside for the borough, they will have to take ?inclusive? school places; why not consider the possibility of allowing these children to continue their education in a Catholic school?

Really, what is so abhorrent about this?"

The RISC document gives the figures regarding, for example, a rising birth rate of 40% in Hounslow.
If Catholic children will need to be educated in Richmond, really, why not allow them to have their Faith School?

They are still Richmond children. They still require an education - this is not "at the expense of others" as if they can't get into out of borough schools, the LA will have to accommodate them elsewhere.

BayJay - I would be shocked if the catchment area for the Clifden Road site and Orleans did not overlap.

I think that I have said earlier and in regards to the council giving priority to an all boys school, although it would not exactly make me happy, I could at least understand the argument given that the borough already has an all-girls school.
I guess that, given 50% of the population have boys, if this was wanted it would come out in the consultation.

50% of the population are boys...

seenbutnotheard - and I'd be shocked if the catchment areas for Clifden Road, Gumley, St Mark's and Gunnersbury didn't overlap too.

I think though, LittleMrsMuppet, that the RISC document has highlighted that the birth rates for the Boroughs surrounding Richmond is rising at a greater rate, so catchment areas in these boroughs will be smaller than they already are.

Oh for goodness sake, it's not going to have gone up that much. The Clifden site is on the Hounslow border and within a couple of miles of the afore mentioned schools.

Apart from anything else, do you know for certain that this increased birthrate is in the Catholic community? Given Hounslow is home to a large Asian community, it may well be that the big increase is in Muslim and Hindu children. I haven't done any analysis on it myself though. Have you?

"the LA will have to accommodate them elsewhere" - quite right. What is "abhorrent" (your words not mine) is for the council to prioritise delivering a school of a single faith at a time when the provision for all children is not adequate.

No single faith should be given a priority when the council has in some cases spectacularly failed to address the needs of the majority for many years.

Its about priorities. I think a single faith school should be a priority.

I understand you do, but I think you are wrong. No amount of argument will convince either of us differently I suspect. For what its worth, whatever the school at Clifden is unlikely to impact my son although it may free up more spaces in Christs which could benefit us. Its the principle of it not my own family agenda.

The Hounslow birth rate I quoted was taken from the RISC document presented at council last week.
I agree, that I don't know the breakdown of the data, but I don't think that it is unreasonable to suggest that Catholics are included in this increase too.

Kewcumber - I assume that you meant to write that you don't think that a single faith school should be a priority

My point is, that if the council needs to accept the fact that Catholic children will need to be educated in borough, I don't think that it is unreasonable that they try to provide a school that meets their faith needs if these children will be taking up inclusive places anyway.

I also agree though that this debate can not move any further along until Michael Gove makes his decision. And I really hope that, whatever decision is made, this happens sooner, rather than later.

Re: BayJay Wed 30-Nov-11 16:49:28: ? . . I think ChrisSquire mentioned in the past that they decide on their policies by voting.? Just so: the Lib Dem group of councillors (24 at present) debate the issues before voting on a policy line recommended by their spokesperson (opposition)/Cabinet member (in control). I was present as an observer the last time the Clifden Road matter was debated and heard several sides of the argument well put.

It should come as no surprise to learn that Cllr Stephen Knight has opinions of his own somewhat different to the policy line taken by the group as a whole: ? . . We support the Catholic archdiocese's wish for a state Catholic Secondary school in the borough, but, with uncertainties over available resources, it should not be at the expense of community secondary school provision. The latter must have the first call on available public money and land. I hope the Government will fund both." The Lib Dems will not get a chance to decide anything about new school places until after the next borough election in May 2014 - and then only if they win.

There is, I believe, no such internal democracy in the Conservative group, which practices ?democratic centralism?: elect a leader and then do as you?re told.

"I would be shocked if the catchment area for the Clifden Road site and Orleans did not overlap"
They will overlap on the Orleans (East) side of Clifden. However, when the Linked School policy goes (and I'm 99% sure that it will) Orleans' current catchment will shrink considerably. One forecast (and we don't know how accurate that is) says that it is not likely to have a radius of more than about 1.5km, so much smaller than at present. Certainly those families who live in the vicinity of Waldegrave will no longer have access to Orleans Park. I know families who are agonising over whether to send their girls to Waldegrave, knowing that their younger sons will in future have no chance of accessing Orleans Park without a sibling link.

ChrisSquire, as an aside, we don't seem to have any independent councillors at the moment. What's your take on why that is, and is it something that has been consistently the case in recent years?

I don't think there has been an independent councillor since 1964

................................ C LD L other
2010 Conservative....... 30 24 - -
2006 Liberal Democrat.. 19 35 - -
2002 Conservative ...... 39 15 - -
1998 Liberal Democrat.. 14 34 4 -
1994 Liberal Democrat.. 7 43 2 -
1990 Liberal Democrat.. 4 48 - -
1986 Liberal/SDP Alliance 3 49 - -
1982 Conservative....... 26 26 - -
1978 Conservative...... 34 18 - -
1974 Conservative...... 36 10 8 -
1971 Conservative...... 37 3 14 -
1968 Conservative...... 54 - - -
1964 Conservative...... 41 - 12 1

Sorry about the table - did not come out as well as I had hoped, but you get the general idea

BayJay: it is just how things are in this borough, where the two-party battle between Lib Dems and Tories is hard fought and always has been ever since Cllr Harry Hall confidently asserted that ?pigs would fly? before the Lib Dems took control of the council. Both parties are always on the look out for anyone willing to stand so there is no pool of wannabe candidates.

Most London boroughs are similar, with no independents except when a Cllr resigns the party whip between elections; they all either stand down or are defeated by a party candidate. However Hounslow elected a group of ?residents association? cllrs in 2006 large enough to share control of the council with Labour until 2010 when they were all defeated I think.

I do not know how many other boroughs have similarly successful groups in the past - very few I think.

seenbutnotheard I respect your choice of the local Catholic school, and understand your desire for a local secondary to transfer to. But it is as you say a leap of faith that all Catholics would support this school as it would have as many places as the numbers going out of borough.

This comparison of school destinations for two neighbouring schools, both unlinked, similar profile, rating and results, does illustrate that geographical discrimination. Except that Clifden gives the pupils of one school an extra option not available to most pupils in the other.

Marshgate 2011 (newsletter)

19 school destinations
state = 52%
private = 48%

St Elizabeth?s school profile (September 2010)

20 school destinations
state = 63% (nearly all outstanding)
private = 36%

This is more or less the pattern for all the schools from Richmond to Barnes I think.

Whoops, counted Toby Young's free school as a private school. Wonder why I did that?!

Marshgate 2011
19 school destinations
state = 55%
private = 45%

St Elizabeth?s 2010
20 schools
state = 63% (most ?outstanding?)
private = 37%

From memory muminlondon I think Kew riverside only has about 10% going private where can I check?

I think that the difficulty is that we are never to know which children ended up going private because they could not get into a Catholic school and which would have always made that choice.

I'm not sure what the answer is to get a more acurate reflection. I would hazzard a guess though that if people are really not interested in the provision of a Catholic secondary school in Richmond they may not complete the consultation papers, as this takes a little more effort than just signing a petition, so perhaps all will become more clear a little later down the line.

Sorry, also to pick you up on your comment that "as it would have as many places as the numbers going out of borough" - that is not quite true...

I believe that the school will have a maximum of 150 places per year and last year I think that 220(ish) children left Catholic primary schools and then travelled out of Borough.

Kewcumber, I can't see that info either but you could probably get a copy of the school transfer destinations from the school office. 10% sounds low for an unlinked school but being small that would fluctuate more. Some schools put it in bulletins to parents towards the end of the summer term, but I notice a few favoured linked schools making a big feature of it on their website. A recent profile of schools with a sub heading 'Where do pupils go afterwards?' is published on this school finder site.