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 ......

Nick whitfield does not seem to talk to the kingston directo as he claimed at the cabinet . Clearly he needs ( even if he does not wants) to take responsibility for misleading us all on a no of things !!

I'd describe it as misplaced optimism rather than deliberately misleading, and I imagine the Kingston director was also still hopeful at the time. That source of funding was always going to be a long shot though.

Is there a map/paper that shows where the black holes are developing in Kingston for children who will be unable to get secondary school places? Presumably most of the children who live near the North Kingston Centre are going to Grey Court at present and anticipate being able to continue to do so as they are quite nearby geographically and can't be squeezed out by children from LB Richmond for the most part, so the worst black spots are actually somewhere else?

With regard to funding for new secondary free schools, given that they need to be quite a lot larger than a primary school to be viable/provide a proper education to an inclusive intake, it just doesn't sound as if the average amount on offer is enough. So presumably the idea is that the parents or whoever wants the school has to find a sponsor/partner that is willing to put money in aswell?

So does this mean that the mythical Egerton Road school of 2016 will also need another set of parents and sponsors willing to work extremely hard to provide something that the Council tax ought to provide, because the Council is unable to open a school itself? That seems another risk factor unless NLS4T hasn't got a site by then and hasn't given up. I suppose Lord True's best case scenario is that the Catholic Church gets a second school at Egerton Road even if it has to let in 50% of the wrong sort of children.

Nick Whitfield comes across as one who is accustomed to having his professional advice greeted by respectful silence when he offers it to councillors and residents. As a former Benedictine monk he must be comfortable with the idea that wisdom comes from those in authority and not from the rationalist sceptical post-Enlightenment discourse typified by Jeremy Rodelll and his colleagues. Truly this affair is a clash of cultures.

However we should acknowledge, and thank him for, his service to the borough in steering the conversion to academies of our three failing secondary schools, which has enabled them to be rebuilt and relaunched.

" it just doesn't sound as if the average amount on offer is enough"
Clearly "average" means some will get more than others, and it would be reasonable to assume that bigger schools would get more than smaller ones .

"So does this mean that the mythical Egerton Road school of 2016 will also need another set of parents and sponsors"
As it says here free schools can be set up by:
?teachers
?charities
?academy sponsors
?universities
?independent schools
?community and faith groups
?parents
?businesses (on a not-for-profit basis)

So, for example, staff from the college could propose a free school at Egerton Road in partnership with local businesses or charities. Alternatively, the council could advertise for an academy sponsor to take on the project, aiming to find one that would work in partnership with the college.

In the case of NLS4T, the sponsor is a charitable trust who are supporting the bid with pro-bono time, effort and skills rather than capital funding.

Chris I am too simple to understand your philosiphical argument . But from where I see as a parent, when I see a professional on a slippery slope, I get deeply concerned. Does Nick whitfield or any of the Cabinet members send their kids to state school and realise the challenges we face ?

The application form - mainstream offers these choices:
?Please state how you would describe your group:
Academy sponsor; Independent school; Other - please provide more details; Parent/community group ; State maintained school ; Teacher-led group?.

The Free School Applicant?s Handbook for 2013 Opening says: ?To set up a Free School, a group of people must come together to form a non-profit Company Limited by Guarantee . . Broadly, there are three Free School models to consider:

• A promoter-run school where the group applies on its own and then takes complete legal responsibility for the school;
• A sponsor-run school where the group partners with an existing non-profit educational provider, which would normally play a role in writing the application, and is in control of all decisions ? taking overall responsibility for running the school; or
• A school provider model where the group proposing the school takes overall responsibility for the school, but outsources part or all of the running of the school to an external educational provider.

JoTwick: look at it this way: Jeremy R & co. order their lives by the motto of the Royal Society: Nullius in verba - take nobody?s word for it. Nick R and Lord True prefer the precepts of Catholic Canon Law, which lays a clear duty on Catholic parents to give their children a Catholic education.

As regards the Council cabinet kids? schooling, for Cllr Samuel, well past 80, it?s more a case of his grandchildren! The cabinet comprises:

Lord True (Chairman) Leader of the Council]; Geoffrey Samuel (Vice-Chairman) [Deputy Leader and Finance & Resources]; Tony Arbour - [Performance]; Pamela Fleming - [Community, Business and Culture]; Chris Harrison - [Highways and Street Scene]; Paul Hodgins - [Schools]; David Marlow - [Community Development]; Virginia Morris - [Environment, Planning, Parks and Highways]; Christine Percival - Strategic [Education, Youth and Children?s Services]; Nicola Urquhart - [Adult services, Health and Housing].

I would be very surprised if any of them had children young enough to be still at primary school simply because of the demands these roles make upon their time, in the evening as well as during the day.

Tony Arbour did send his kids to local state schools in Teddington. Virginia Morris has two young children not yet at school. I understood that Paul Hodgins had several children at a local primary school too one of whom is in Year 6 and may or may not go to RPA. Don't know about the others but I think quite old. Didn't Lord True send his boys to Eton or is that an urban myth!?

Can't see the staff at Richmond College volunteering to set up a new school - they seem rather fed up generally! Hope someone will but it seems a lot of work. I remain puzzled about how a big secondary in an expensive area can be expected to be funded without taking up too much of the pot and stopping several cheaper schools going ahead. It seems like the free school scheme isn't really ambitious enough to keep up with the need for large new schools in urban areas.

Thanks Chris. Canon Law does not say that state should fund exclusive Catholic schools. Which other country does that - even Italy, France and Spain do not have state funded Catholic schoos.
Coming to the Cabinet, it was mentioned on this thread that Paul Hodgins had young kids, but could not bring him to send them to RPA. So he seems to have given on the state sector.
4 of 9 members did not utter a word apart from saying "Agree" to pass the 2 decisions. What a waste of space - Did they not care enough about education!
So not only did we have an out of touch but also nearly 50% disinterested Cabinet relying on a questionable professional judgement.

Sorry 5 out of 9 Cabinet members did not say anthing on Clifden Road debate. Got my counting wrong - they were Samuel, Fleming, Urquhart, Morris & Harrison. And clearly others were just offering slow and juicy full tosses to the Catholic speakers. It looked like a real set up when someone asked a Catholic speaker very gently what is the admission policy? And he gladly read it out and obliged.

There seems to be some confusion about the duties of Catholic parents and what Canon Law says about state-funded Catholic schools. Parents aren?t expected to interpret Canon Law for themselves, as this section from the admissions policy of Richard Challoner school in Kingston makes clear: ?Catholic parents are reminded that they should send their children to Catholic schools, as required by the teaching of the Catholic Bishops of England and Wales (Catholic Bishops? Conference of England and Wales, May 2000).?

The Vatican?s Code of Canon Law: www.vatican.va/archive/cdc/index.htm doesn?t say directly that there should be state-funded Catholic education. But effectively it says that there ought to be state-subsidised Catholic schools and instructs the members of the church to do their best to get the appropriate laws put in place. Here?s the actual wording:

Can. 797 Parents must possess a true freedom in choosing schools; therefore, the Christian faithful must be concerned that civil society recognizes this freedom for parents and even supports it with subsidies; distributive justice is to be observed.
Can. 798 Parents are to entrust their children to those schools which provide a Catholic education. If they are unable to do this, they are obliged to take care that suitable Catholic education is provided for their children outside the schools.
Can. 799 The Christian faithful are to strive so that in civil society the laws which regulate the formation of youth also provide for their religious and moral education in the schools themselves, according to the conscience of the parents.
Can. 800 §1. The Church has the right to establish and direct schools of any discipline, type, and level.

Of course, in theory this is irrelevant - other than as a set of aspirations - as Catholic Canon Law has no status in the UK. But the Roman Catholic Church is the world's most powerful and influential religious organisation, so it's not a bad idea to know where it's coming from.

Rylerom - Thanks for that clarification on Canon Law and rights to have state funded exclusive Catholic schools. In the statement to the Cabinet, Matthew Paul said that the ?religion and belief? Protected Characteristic in the Equality Duty is clearly being met because the purpose of the school is to meet the needs of Catholic parents for a Catholic secondary school. But that is only true if it does not trample on the interests of residents from other religions and beliefs, including those with no religious beliefs. Clearly, a very large number of them, believe that it will. The key point underlying this debate is that one belief group, Catholics, is being given a privilege over everyone else. To claim that this is justified on the basis of equality seems perverse.

Does anyone know how many catholic kids go private . I suspect there are a number of them who prefer a private Catholic school or a non denomination private school . Perhaps Magic or someone else could kindly share this info

Lottie, not an urban myth, both boys went to Eton and the daughter started out at The Old Vicarage before going on to Catholic private schools although I wouldn't normally believe anything I read in the Daily Mail

Jo, There are certainly girls who go from St James's to LEH each year, it's a well trodden path.

There is a bus from Fullwell to St George's Weybridge, arguably the best private Catholic School around here, unless you count Oratory , but then it doesn't have exclusive Catholic admissions, somehow it still manages not to have "diluted" that precious ethos .

Jo, there's some analysis of St James' 2010 transfer figures way back here at 22-Jul-11 20:32:27.

(And you'll notice I've figured out how to link to specific posts )

There may also be some Catholic families who send their kids private (either to a Catholic or non Catholic) even at primary level. I am thinking about a lot of them at the popular in Borough private schools such as St Pauls, Vicagare, Harrodians etc.
There are 300 students in Catholic state primaries, but I am not sure how many are in private. I have not seen stats that show what % of overall Catholic population never enter the state education system.

Gmsing, of course, yes, there will be. I know two families in that category, as I mentioned here.

Gmsing: We will have to wait for the results of the 2011 Census to get an estimate of the total number of Catholic children in the borough:

. . The second release of 2011 Census statistics will take place between November 2012 and February 2013. The statistics will be available for local authorities . . tables include: Usual resident population; Age structure; Living arrangements; Marital and civil partnership status; Country of birth; Ethnic group; Religion; Health and provision of unpaid care; Economic activity; Hours worked; Main language; Passports held; Household language; National identity; Length of residency in the UK.

Chris, the census results won't answer that because Question 20 was phrased as:

What is your religion?
- No religion
- Christian (including Church of England, Catholic, Protestant and all other Christian denominations)
- Buddhist
- Hindu
- Jewish
- Muslim
- Sikh
- Any other religion, write in

So there's no distinction between Catholic and other Christian groups.

Dang! Actually I think the Catholic establishment has missed a trick here. As they think that they are the only true Christians and that they need - or want - separate education, they should have asked for a Catholic option to be added. Indeed the view has been expressed in this forum that only the practising - as against cultural - Catholics that should get access to their state funded schools.

Which seem strange to me as surely it is the children of the cultural Catholics (the majority I guess) whom the Church should be trying to win back to the Faith.

Suggest you tone it down Chris. There's no benefit in stirring things up.

Chris - I think most of us have encountered far more cultural Catholics who want their children to have a Catholic education for nostalgic reasons and/or fear of the hurly-burly/lower educational standards of their local secondary school, than truly religious Catholics who feel it is a necessity to have a religious education. It's because I've never met someone with children at a Catholic school who fell into the devout category that this whole saga makes no sense to me.

Copthall - I didn't realise Lord True's son was actually classmates at Eton with Prince William! It's just so ludicrous that in a democracy we have someone with so little regard for state education forcing through decisions that affect so many families.

Chris/Lottie, I think its a reasonable assumption that at the heart of the school strategy of both the Catholic Church and the Church of England is a general aim to encourage cultural Christians to go to church more often. However, the two churches are approaching it differently.

The Catholic church is (effectively) making church attendance a condition of entry to their (most popular) schools. That will get more cultural Catholics going to church, but has the negative effect of closing the door on disadvantaged (though still just as culturally Catholic) families (single parents, shift workers, full time carers, people with learning difficulties etc) who can't keep up the required levels of commitment. The result is lower FSM percentages at those schools, as we've seen locally.

The CofE has a different approach. It is gradually removing its Church-attendance requirements to encourage a wider mixture of applicants, and using the Free School programme to increase its number of schools dramatically. No doubt its aim will still be to encourage cultural Christians to go to church more often (or at least identify more closely with Christian heritage), and perhaps even to convert some non-Christians. However, they're working towards doing that on mass, across the full social spectrum.

It will be interesting to see which strategy is most successful in the long run.