New Secondary Schools for Richmond 2

[BayJay]

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

Is anyone else having problems with the webcast? I have no sound or picture (but do have cllrs names at bottom of blank screen). Haven't had a problem with previous webcasts

same prob here, its not working!

Working now, but missed most of the petition

Inadequate responses from councillors to all public questions. We deserve proper responses !!

Lors True's arrogance is blinding his reading of the petition wording and petition scheme rules. The inclusive school petition makes a simple request on a point of principle: "to ensure that every state-funded school opening in the borough from now on is inclusive, so that no child can be denied a place in a good local school because of the religion or belief of their parents." This applies not only to the new secondary school proposed for Clifden Road, and does not even preclude a future Catholic school on that site or elsewhere, assuming it has inclusive admissions. It is highly highly inappropriate of him to say that it is against or opposite of what the Catholic school petition is asking. Hence it is not fair on him to not give a response to the inclusive school petition and break the petition rules.

Really sorry to see the 3 brave public members treated with such disdain. Cllr Samuel seemed in a hurry to sit down and not provide any answers to the lady's question on cost benefit. Jeev - I think Lord True is just downright rude and does not care about replying to people. Cllr Hodgins response to the other lady's question just proved how confused he is about the school places!
If they have any concern and respect for members of public who come to gallery toask questions, they should issue a public apology and provide detailed proper written responses

I'll have a look at the webcast later but I don't like the sound of Lord True being as dismissive of members of the public as he is of opposition politicians.

About the free school proposal - I find the idea of a 4-16 or even 4-18 school in Richmond somewhat unrealistic. Richmond's primary schools are the best in the country but higher up, perhaps as many as 40% on the East Sheen side are leaving at 11 to go to private secondaries, mostly selective. A free school obviously wouldn't be able to select on the basis of ability and is more likely to lose pupils higher up the school, unless it has something unique to offer (e.g. SEN specialism not catered for in state secondaries). While primary can still effective with one teacher per single-form entry, and some imaginative swapping between classes in KS2 (e.g. for specialist science or language teaching), a secondary works on a very different scale and may not be able to offer a sufficient variety of expertise without 120-200 pupils per intake. Which requires a different sort of head, different administration, a different school really.

Just my opinion.

It looks like the archived webcast of last night's Council Meeting is now available, though I haven't tested it to see if it works ok.

Yes, the web archive works OK - every cough & splutter in the chamber is clearly heard!

Council meeting footage was interesting. Cllr. Hodgins is clearly having to implement a policy that he doesn't believe in but is beginning to see light at the end of the tunnel as the number of variables surrounding the issue of whether there will be enough secondary school places continues to mount! Agree about the way people asking questions were treated. I don't think councillors and petitioners should be allowed to bandy allegations about and attack those they disagree with using a process under which their opponents have no right to reply. It's becoming very clear that the ruling cabal is determined to have its way and if there is a consultation it won't be a fair one.

Build a school on Orleans House Woods - over my dead body! But as it's protected Metropolitan Open Land very unlikely luckily.

Do you think the Council is hoping the Sixth Form College will have collapsed by 2016 and that is its secret site for the elusive community secondary school?

Do you think the Council is hoping the Sixth Form College will have collapsed by 2016
I think there'll always be a role for a 6th form college, because not everybody will want to stay on at 6th form. However, the numbers at the college are already falling (due to other boroughs introducing 6th forms, and the loss of the educational maintenance allowance). If borough schools also get 6th forms, the size of the college will inevitably reduce further, but whether there would be a case for a school on the site is another question.

I'm not very familiar with the college, but presumably they have sports grounds that could potentially be shared by a theoretical community school in Clifden Road (if the VA school is rejected), since its just a short hop over the railway line. Any comments?

I just caught up with the bits of the council meeting that I missed last night. They've added a useful "index Points" tab to the Webcast so you can jump to the relevant sections of the meeting. Item 3 is the Catholic School supporters' petition debate, and Item 4 covers the public questions that relate to it. However, in my view the most useful bit to listen to is Item 14 (Notices of Motion). It primarily covers 6th form provision, but many of the issues relating to secondary school places are aired too.

I just wanted to add that the scariest thing about the council's stance on the secondary school forecasts is that Lord True's only defence of their position is (paraphrasing) "the forecasts are produced by professional council officers". As someone with a numerate and scientific background who tries to look at the world objectively, that simply doesn't hold water. The fact is that the forecasts are scaffolded by huge assumptions. Others are pointing out the very credible risks of those assumptions being incorrect and are being dismissed, simply because of who they are. There is no "what if" planning. There is no "thank you for pointing that out, we'll take a look at it and get back to you". There are just lots of heels being dug in. One thing is for sure, if things do go wrong, and some aspect of the business comes to Judicial Review, the council's blindness to the risk has been recorded for posterity.

We would expect the professionals to give a professional reply and justify why they do not agree with Cllr Eady predictions and RISC predictions. Have they provided any robust analysis and arguments to justify this ? If not how do we get them to provide a professional reply

Akhan, the correct way to challenge the council on their figures is through the Scrutiny process.

The council's numerical forecasts for secondary school places were first published at the request of the Education & Children's Services Scrutiny Committee 1 week prior to their 21st November meeting. The minutes from that meeting have not yet been published, but it was a public meeting and I was there so I can give you a personal account of what happened.

As well as the council's forecasts, the committee members had been sent a copy of RISC's response (an earlier version of this one combined with its appendices). That had been produced by Jeremy Rodell (who has a professional, numerate and analytical background), using publicly available data, in the few days between the forecasts first being published and the meeting taking place. However the committee members had not had it for very long and some had only received it that day.

The Secondary School forecast paper and appendices were considered under item 8 of the agenda. Jeremy Rodell was there and gave a short presentation to the committee, drawing its attention to his analysis and the potential risks he had identified in the council's forecasts. The committee then questioned the Director of Education, Cabinet Member for Schools, and the Head of School Commissioning. The questioning was intense by some of the committee members. One committee member asked if the council would be responding to the analysis presented by Mr Rodell, and the answer from the Director of Education was yes. Their tone was respectful and while they had not yet had time to fully consider the RISC paper they seemed willing to listen and respond appropriately.

One committee member proposed that, as the forecasts were to be presented at Cabinet three days later, the committee should send a message to Cabinet to convey that there were risks associated with the forecasts. There was some discussion about the wording, and some members didn't think it was necessary to send such a message. Ultimately there was a vote on whether the committee should send a message or not, and it was decided that no message should be sent.

At the subsequent Cabinet meeting, Jeremy Rodell again gave a presentation. However, the Secondary School strategy, based on the council's forecasts, was approved.

Gosh, Jeremy Rodell has been given a considerable amount of time to stand on his soap box hasn't he?

No one can, for one minute say that his views have not had a good airing.

I disagree with you BayJay when you dismiss the professional standing of the likes of Mathew Paul and Nick Whitfield - they have been doing their job for some time under this administration, and the last. I am not aware of their abilities being called into question by the LibDems when they were in control of the council - unless you know something I don't?
They, at least, have experience in the planning for educational services in our borough. Whilst I am not dismissing Jeremy Rodell's passion for his cause and his business experience for Shell, it is not quite the same thing.

I wonder what input the Humanist's anti faith school's campaigner has in the RISC campaign?

seenbutnotheard, I'm not dismissing their professionalism at all. They responded to Jeremy Rodell very professionally. I expect that, in time, they will respond as promised, taking on board some of his points. However, the decision has been made now, so their response will not be effective in informing the decision.

The response to the predictions needs to be made on the basis of numerical and anaytical rigour and keeping aside preference for type of schools. As professionals Nick and Matthew should provide logical and rigorous response. I agree that Lord True dismissing any other prediction is not the dignified way forward and highlights him as being very defensive and non constructive. A better answer from him could have been - thanks for taking interest and time and giving us important information. Our professionals will review and consider and provide detailed response. If they are so confident of their predictions why cant they have the courage to provide feedback on Lib Dem and RISC prediction and justify their stance.

Who did the scary gentleman dressed in black represent in the webcast? If that is the opposition to the Catholic VA option he did that cause no good - meanwhile the man who spoke for the VA option was very good: he made the point that Catholic population is as inclusive as the rest of the borough probably more so.

I feel that Kevin Coakley's speech to the Council in support of his petition did bring out some good points in support of Catholic VA school. There is no denying the aspiration and strong support of the Catholic community for a Catholic VA school. However he did let everyone supporting his cause down by making a number of unsubstantiated attacks on RISC - I am waiting for RISC to respond to them as in the meeting they did not get the chance. In contrast Jeremy made a very dignified speech when he presented the inclusive school petition on 13 Sep and even started saying that we do not oppose a Catholic school and providing some alternative and fairer options for solving the needs of everbody. In a democratic society it should be possible to challenge the powerful lobby seeking a Catholic secondary school with exclusive admissions. I hope we can have a debate in a constructive manner and not be dismissed unfairly.

Florist, I think that the person you refer to was James Heather, who is, alongside Jeremy Rodell on the committee of the South West London Humanist Group.

He asked a perfectly valid and reasonable question. When will the Council give a response to the RISC petition ??

What do you mean akhan? They gave a response to the RISC petition on the night that the petition was presented didn't they?

There is disagreement regarding the figures for future school places, but as everyone has said, this is not an exact science - the only real figure that is known is that there are over 200 undersubscribed in-borough secondary places at the moment.

seenbutnotheard, what they (i.e. RISC) mean when they say they haven't had a response is that the debate that followed the presentation of the RISC petition dealt with the question of whether or not there should be a Catholic school, rather than concentrating on the admissions issue. The option of a Catholic school with inclusive admissions (or even 50:50 as in an academy) was not dealt with in the debate.

There is not "disagreement on the figures", there is diagreement on the level of risk in the figures. When people make numerical forecasts in a professional capacity, they quantify the risk, and decisions based on the forecasts take the risk into account. Its a very well tried and tested technique. Nothing radical.

From this evening's RISC Newsletter:
' . . One question was why our petition had not yet received a formal response, despite the debate in September. Lord True incorrectly claimed that a response had been given, when we have an email from the Council saying that it woud not be provided till after the Catholic petition had been presented . . '