New Secondary Schools for Richmond 3

[BayJay]

Hello and welcome to the Mumsnet thread about Richmond Borough Secondary Schools. The discussion started in February 2011 in two parallel locations here and here.

In November 2011 the most active of those two threads, in Mumsnet Local, reached 1000 messages (the maximum allowed) so we continued the conversation here.

Now its May 2012 and that thread has also filled up, so the conversation will continue here ......

p.s. Twickenham Academy had an Ofsted inspection last week, so hopefully the outcome of that will help to show that the council's efforts are bearing fruit. Also, TA's building work is expected to be complete by spring 2013, which will give it a huge boost.

For anyone who hasn't seen it there is very positive Mumsnet thread about Twickenham Academy.

It was interesting to look at the map of link admissions to Orleans here in the light of Matthew Pauls assertion to St Mary's parents that Bayjay linked to. By my counting (perfectly happy to concede not entirely accurate) if the catchment is 1.8 km and ends at the Heath Road bridge then 26 in West Twickenham and 18 in the north around the Hounslow Border would not have got in.

Interestingly though the figures that were given in the linked school consultation Para 5 here suggest that only 1 Hounslow child would have got in on distance making the catchment (even allowing for wiggly roads) nearer the 1.5 km suggested in the Libdem document posted by Chris Squires. That would put the end of the catchment closer to Clifden Road and mean a further 11 in the West and 11 in the north around the Hounslow border would not have got in.

Anecdotally this seems very likely, hearing of lots of Vineyard parents gleeful about chance to take over Orleans

And then of course there are children from Trafalgar who would not have got in to Teddington, at least 5 look like they wouldn't from the Teddington map. So between 26 (assuming the 1.8 km catchment and that all the Hounslow children go somewhere else) and 71 children who would have got into the community Schools chasing the spare places at TA?

And the Council are only predicting 10 less vacancies at TA in 2013, which will have 35 places spare, when the link school is abolished? but then they are assuming a new free school comes on stream, lets hope it does!

And interestingly that the creation of a new community school over this side in 2016 will free up 30 places at RPA.

Trust needs to be earned and the changing statements and words do not help. When you see rules being bent , you do not need to be a cynic to question everything.

And there is a major contradiction here . If quality at RPA improves, twickenham kids may not get in as the locals will get distance priority

"If quality at RPA improves, twickenham kids may not get in as the locals will get distance priority"

Yes, that's when the "trust me, there will be a school at Egerton Road, and perhaps a free school too" bit comes in.

Actually, as the Egerton Road school would probably have to be a free school too (under current rules) I should have said that's when the "trust me, there may be a free school at Egerton Road, and perhaps another free school too" bit comes in.

The new education act doesn't allow the council just to set up a community school as it would have been able to do in the past. It could invite academy providers to compete for the site, but as they're proposing the school be created in partnership with the college I think that means it would need to be a free school proposal.

I don't think it will be just Vineyard pupils opting for Orleans Park - there could be Marshgate pupils too, although not all will, and it will depend where they live as to whether and how many will actually get in. The problem in both cases is that having an improved Christ's virtually next door with open places means there haven't been sufficient numbers to form a link elsewhere (and some 2007 admission forum minutes suggest this). About a quarter of pupils from both schools are opting for Christ's currently.

Chris - Cllr Knight was saying in his speech on Thu that Clifden Rd was purchased to provide much needed school places locally and should be used for that.
Since the Council is now not using it for that purpose, does it not change the rationale for buying the site as I beleive was done using special emergency powers ??

JoTwick: the purchase was agreed at a scheduled cabinet meeting in the ordinary way, except that it was a late addition to the agenda:

?Purchase of Clifden Road site site for the provision of school places (Council minute, July 21) ? . . CABINET received an urgent late report of the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources . . The purpose of the report was to seek agreement to the purchase of the site of the Richmond Adult Community College, Clifden Road, Twickenham, to provide future school provision.

The Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources introduced the item and reminded members present that the decision before them was to agree the purchase of the site for school provision at this stage. Decisions regarding the type of school and whether it may provide a Catholic Secondary school for the borough would be a process completed after this initial decision had been taken. He argued that a school on this site would benefit children and parents in the Borough, as well as the college and those partaking in adult education . .

It was RESOLVED that:

1. The purchase of the RACC premises at Clifden Road, Twickenham, for future school provision, on the terms set out within this report and within the confidential report be agreed . . ?

A new Catholic school counts as ?future school provision?.

The pros and cons of Steiner schools are described in A different class: the expansion of Steiner schools in Saturday?s Guardian.

Can anyone shed any light on this below..
..... Don't usually church/faith schools provide their own land for a school as well as building maintenance, whilst local tax payers just pay for the running costs (eg staff mostly I guess) ??

In this proposed Catholic school aren't the Council giving the land/site basically free to the Catholic church? Isn't there a peppercorn rent mentioned somewhere for 125 years??

In that case, even if you support the idea that we need an 100% exclusive Catholic Secondary and a mostly Catholic primary, isn't it really bad value for local taxpayers?

Shouldn't the Catholic church have to pay for the site? IE. refund the 30 million or whatever it was that the council paid for the site.

If this does not happen then isn't the council just wasting that money. If other schools all own their sites already, then not paying for the Clifden site is really unfair on them? Why would this school be different from all previous church schools.

I know the Church is due to pay the cost of updating the buildings but as this is an expensive area for land surely this is much less than the cost of the land.
Then at least if we do get this unfair school, Taxpayers money won't be so wasted and the money for the site could even be ear-marked for incusive school use, say to help the shortage of Primary places or to help buy a site for Free School.

Sorry If I've missed anything but the fact that the Catholic church is not paying for the land seems to make it doublly unfair to majority of tax payers.

TwoCotbeds, your're right that historically VA schools have been created on land owned by the church. The council pays their running costs and 90% of their maintenance costs.

In the Clifden Road case, the church will rent the land from the council, and pay the cost of refurbishing the buildings for the secondary school. After that the council will pay their running costs and 90% of their maintenance costs. The council will fund the building costs for the primary school.

The 125 years lease at a peppercorn rent is the same terms that the Academy providers have. Its only considered unusual in the case of Clifden Road because the proposal is for a VA school rather than an Academy. It will probably convert to an Academy within a few years of opening, but that is also controversial because if it opened as an Academy it would need to have 50:50 admissions, whereas if it converts to Academy status after opening it can keep its existing admissions policy.

Hope that clarifies things.

In some cases councils have closed down existing comprehensives and then allowed VA schools to have the site, and this continues. Tony Blair cut the capital contribution necessary for faith schools from 15% to 10% about 10 years ago.

OK I think I understand. So you mean the new Catholic school would rent the Clifden site on the same way as the Academies do. But what I was trying to get at, is.... doesn't this mean the Catholic Church is not contributing as much as other Church schools have to for their schools?

I see you have compared the new Catholic School to the Academies, but what about comparing it to other Faith schools like Christs Secondary school or to Faith primary schools?

I can see the other faith schools get the 'advantage' of restricting admissions to their own followers because they have supplied the land. They own an asset already to use as a school.

But in this case the Catholic Church would only be paying rent like an academy. However our current academies are all inclusive.

So what I'm trying to get at is....... for a new Catholic School to restrict admissions to their own followers like other Faith schools locally do, then surely it should pay the 30 million to own the land? To be a similar deal. I'm not comparing the new Catholic school to Academies but to an established Faith school.

Am I still completely mixed up about this? sorry if so!

Yes, compared to other VA schools it is contributing less, as you say.

Many other historic VA schools were funded completely by the church when they were set up, and their contribution has reduced gradually over time through different legislation.

I've heard that the council did actually own Clifden Rd in the past, and effectively gave it to the college, so it does seem like a double whammy that its now having to buy it back.

One route to A VA school that would seem less controversial would be if a private Catholic school were to convert to A state school, as the land would then be donated by the church.

Exactly Bayjay, this is a worse deal for majority of tax payers than the usual, already established church schools.

like you say, at least if St Catherines in Twick changed from private to State we would get a better deal for all of us who pay council tax. It wouldn't have cost us all the 30 million. Two times 30 mill, if the council gave it away last time! What a waste of money.

This school is unfair on SO many levels.

Agree and this financial side of things is one of my main objections to this whole Catholic school saga. Why blow all those millions (I think £15 million but it's confidential) on a site for a limited group of children who don't really "need" secondary school places urgently as they have a choice of their local secondary school or Catholic schools in neighbouring boroughs when you have a looming crisis for everyone else in 2-3 years and a current crisis for 170 children with no primary school places.

I think that the Council may not have had any choice about giving Clifden Road up - I believe Mrs Thatcher forced the Council to transfer Clifden Road to the Richmond Adult Education under some rule about Council's not being able to run adult education anymore?

However when I first heard mention of a Catholic secondary school being "needed" in LB Richmond it was about 10 years ago and all the discussion assumed that the Catholic church would provide/buy the site. At that time it was thought that the playing fields of St Mary's College (a Catholic institution) opposite Teddington Studios/Lensbury might be the site but there were lots of objections to building on them as they are Metropolitan Open Land. I think the Lib Dems have been very woolly about this - they should have said from the beginning that their support for a Catholic school as previously expressed was on the assumption that the Catholic church would pay for its own site not take the only one available.

Marshgate was built on the site where the old RC school Edward the Confessor would have been. Did the council have to buy the land from the RC diocese back then?

Muminlondon, there's lots of detail about the acquisition of the Marshaget site here. It involved a land swap between the council and the Diocese of Southwark.

Thanks BayJay, that's interesting..

The link posted by BayJay also says this about the history of Christ?s School:

?Christ?s CE Secondary Schools currently (2002) occupies two sites on Queens Road in Richmond. The main site was formerly the site of St Mary Magdalene CE Secondary School and, now known as the Christ?s East Site has undergone expansion as part of a phased programme to consolidate the school onto a single site. Ownership of the part of the site occupied by the buildings is within the curtilege of the School Trustees whilst the Council owns the grounds. The smaller site was formerly the site of St Edward the Confessor RC Secondary School. Half of this site is owned by the Council and half by the RC Diocese of Southwark. The buildings are leased to the CE Southwark Diocesan Board for the use of Christ?s School.

Since the two original secondary schools merged to form the LEA?s only ecumenical school, the school?s performance and popularity declined until, in [1997], the RC Diocese of Southwark pulled out of the partnership and in [1998] the CE Southwark Diocesan Board and the LEA, in the face of a rapidly declining school role, sought permission from the Secretary of State for Education to close the school. The intention was to open a new school in expanded accommodation on the East Site. Permission was declined but the relaunch of the school went ahead with the appointment of a new headteacher and a recruitment drive aimed at increasing
the number of transfers from LEA primary schools.

Making the school more popular with Richmond parents is essential to the Council?s strategy for providing sufficient secondary school places. The Council is short of secondary school places and utilising the potential of Christ?s to accommodate more pupils would help to ease this shortage.?

An interesting article from 4th July 1997 edition of the Catholic Herald regarding the ecumenical school.

Been trawling through the Catholic Herald archive, which has been quite illuminating actually.

I found this article London Council Accused of Snubbing Parents 22/06/07. What interested me was this 'The council had submitted a proposal for a Catholic secondary school to Westminster diocese in 2005... The initial bid in 2005 was put forward in conjunction with St Mary's University in Twickenham'.

Does anyone know further about these proposals? This would seem to confirm the assertions made here about the use of land at what is now St Mary's Teddington Lock sports campus.

Hi Cat2405. This is how the RTT reported on the 2005 proposal.

When will the Council actually complete the purchase of the Clifden Road site and then lease it for the Catholic schools ?

JoTwick: they will have to wait for the outcome of the judicial review - if it goes ahead. RISC said on May 25: . . Now that the Council's decision has been taken, RISC and the BHA will be meeting shortly with their lawyers to consider next steps.