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 has a new job, on top of his existing one. We're obviously not keeping him busy enough here in Richmond!

RISC write, in an email to supporters, ? . . (the) initial hearing (asking for the judicial review) is expected in 4 to 8 weeks . . ?, i.e. by September 03.

What is judicial review? (Public Law Project Information Leaflet 2) says:

? . . 3. If. . . the response is unsatisfactory, the Claimant can make an application to the Court for permission to bring the judicial review proceedings . .
. . 5. The Defendant then normally tells the Court briefly why it thinks that the decision was not unlawful . .

1. A Judge will consider the application . . and will usually decide just by looking at the papers whether permission should be granted or not.

. . 11. If (it is) the Defendant must file and serve, within 35 days of service of the order granting permission, its detailed grounds for contesting the claim and any written evidence such as witness statements it wants to rely on. 12. In due course a hearing will take place when a Judge will consider the matter fully. This can be several months from when the claim was first issued. It is usual for both parties to be represented by barristers. The hearing can last from a couple of hours to several days depending on the complexity of the case. There is usually no oral evidence. 13. Usually the court gives a fully reasoned decision some weeks after the hearing, but this will be done more quickly in urgent cases . . ?

RISC are asking their supporters to pledge a fixed amount of money towards the bill for costs if the case goes against them and the amount promised by BHA is not enough.

I made it along to Zac Goldsmith's Public Meeting about the North Kingston school last night, so thought I'd post a summary for anyone interested. If anyone else was there, and remembers something I missed, feel free to pitch in!

There were Richmond Council officers in the audience, and also Maggie Bailey (head of Grey Court), along with at least 150 local parents and residents. Nick Whitfield was up on stage, with Zac G, and the portfolio leaders of the Kingston Lib Dems and Conservatives. The local Lib Dem MP sent a representative who made a statement to say he was fully in support of what was being discussed, and there was a big emphasis on how all political differences were being laid aside so everyone could work together to make the school happen.

In their introduction they said there was 2 ways of getting funds from Government for a new school - Basic Needs funding (described as a diminishing pot, being targetted at primaries) and Free Schools (the bigger pot and the Government's preferred method). Zac said he was convinced (and gave the impression he'd been assured) that they would get Free School money if the community pulled together and created an application in time for the next round.

ZG said that he'd been told the original consortium (LA, College, Uni) could be the Free School proposers, so long as the LA was just a small percentage.

There were lots of questions, with one or two people being a bit aggressive, but not excessiely so. Basic gist of the dialogue was .....

• Has the Basic Needs route been exhausted? Why is the community being pushed into a Free School? The team on the stage said they'd continue to investigate the BN route but understood there was little chance. (They didn't mention that even if they did get funding through that route the Education Act says they would need to invite proposals for an Academy, rather than create the Community school that many people want). One person suggested that the council sold assets to raise the money themselves, but they explained they were doing that anyway to pay for existing services, and if they needed to raise extra local money for the school it would mean 5% on council tax bills.

• As Free Schools aren't generally big capital projects, would they need to use the existing building, and therefore scale down to 5 or 6 forms of entry rather than the 8 forms they were originally planning? There was uncertainty about that. Some people love the existing building and want to keep it anyway. Local residents are worried about the congestion caused by a new school so would like to minimise its size. An action was taken by the team to get someone in to assess the existing building for its suitability and capacity.

• Maggie Bailey got up and spoke in the spirit of "we need this, lets get on with it". She offered to be part of the steering group and suggested they set up a meeting in a couple of weeks time, and anyone who had skills to offer should put their name forward. She got a round of applause for that.

• People wanted reassurance that the centre would still be a resource for the local community in the evenings, which they got.

Details of the proposed resourced SEN provision at the proposed Catholic school site at Clifden Road here:

Strathmore School consultation

From the documents: It is proposed to rebuild Strathmore School in the following way. The resourced provision at The Russell Primary School in Ham would be rebuilt and would provide primary classes. Secondary provision would be developed at Grey Court School in Ham. All-through primary and secondary provision would be developed at the proposed new Catholic secondary school on the Clifden Road site in Twickenham. In addition both secondary sites would offer post-16 provision. A small respite facility is planned for the Grey Court and The Russell sites. A hydrotherapy pool is planned for the Grey Court site.

For the avoidance of doubt, the SEN provision is being provided by the Local Authority, and isn't dependent on the type of school provided at Clifden Road. Exactly the same provision could been made if a Free School, Catholic Academy, etc, got the site. (That wasn't made clear at the Cabinet Meeting that made the Clifden Road decision, and at least one of the Cabinet Members described the SEN provision as an influencing factor on her decision).

So does that mean that non-Catholic children with SEN will be allowed to go to school at the Catholic schools at Clifden Road? Will they be integrated into school life or penned up in a separate compound?

Lottie, that's a very undiplomatic way of asking about the type of SEN provision.

The SEN provision will be appropriate to what is needed. A Scrutiny Task Group has recently produced a very detailed SEN study, making lots of recommendations, and this new provision will fit into the council's ongoing plans.

Re admissions, by law, SEN children have priority admission over non-SEN children. (Though if I remember correctly from the VA proposal, Catholic SEN children may have priority over non-Catholic SEN children in this case. I can't find the admissions policy to verify that at the moment).

Sorry but I am interested to understand whether a school that says it has to have 100% Catholics will be able to bring itself to integrate non-Catholics with special needs or if it is accepting this on the basis that they will be in a separate unit and will not have anything to do with the Catholic children. I had a conversation with a Tory councillor a few months ago who said she envisaged far more children with SEN being excluded/sent elsewhere from the five community secondary schools once they become Academies so there could be a sizeable number of children in these units. Presumably they will be children with less severe problems as Strathmore will still be open or perhaps it will be done on the basis of geography in which case many children from the Twickenham, Teddington, Hampton area may end up at Clifden? Dyslexia provision in Richmond state schools is pretty dire in my experience so I wonder if this unit will cover dyslexia as does the one at Grey Court.

hang on - does that mean SEN kids will have no choice but to be at Clifden Road ad if that is a Catholic school, they will have to accept Catholic education ?

"does that mean SEN kids will have no choice"

They will technically have a choice, because they have priority admission to whichever school they think best suits their needs. However, it may be a difficult choice if the best SEN provision for a particular child is at Clifden, and the family has a strong preference for a non-faith school. They will then need to weigh up their priorities. Presumably the same is true for the SEN provision at St James. However, perhaps that is run as a completely separate unit, with no particular faith ethos ... I don't know without reading up on it a bit more, but maybe someone else is familiar with it.

From the consultation document that Cat2405 linked to above .....

"The benefit of placing special school classes alongside a mainstream school is that it opens up the possibility of greater inclusion in mainstream activities and curriculum. Each school would have its own rooms, but some facilities would be shared to support inclusion. This is one of the most innovative aspects of the development. Pupils would have greater access to mainstream inclusion experiences. This would have wide reaching social inclusion as well as educational benefits for all pupils."

So, Lottie, I guess that answers your original question.

Yes, thanks have now looked at the consultation document and Scrutiny report and, from what I have read, this would be 18-24 children at primary level and the same at secondary in separate units for children with severe learning disabilities and complex needs (not moderate learning difficulties or excluded for behavioural reasons). They would actually not be part of the school at Clifden, and Strathmore would still be called a separate school but its site would be sold and the pupils distributed to facilities at Clifden, Grey Court and Russell. So religion not really an issue. I don't know enough about SEN to know whether this is better than the current situation but the Task Group report seems to emphasise the need for purpose built accommodation, recommending rebuilding Strathmore and Clarendon if possible, so not sure that being sited in a revamped but ageing Clifden building or sharing its facilities would be ideal.

The Guardian reports Third of new free schools are religious: Government announces more than 100 new free schools, including 33 which describe themselves as religious. No mention of Twickenham; no list of schools and no link to such a list, which is not yet on the DfE website.

Update: the New Local School tam write: ' . . Sadly, the New Local School for Twickenham isn?t on the list. This is a big disappointment for us, and particularly for all of our registered families who have children currently in Year 5. However, it is not the end of our proposal. We know it is a very strong bid, and have good reason to believe that this is only a temporary setback, related to the local uncertainties in school place planning. We intend to resubmit it for the next round of funding, with a view of opening in September 2014.

Very sad news. Please let us know if you hear whether any of the local applicants got through. I've lost track of when LB Richmond said it needed 100 free school places by - was it September 2013?

That is very sad, especially for Year 5 parents in North and West Twickenham. Hopefully by this time next year when we know the impact of removing the link system things will be much clearer on the forecasting front. Though doubtless there will be the usual cushion of parents who move or go private. And ironically if the new Catholic School opens in 2013 and Catholic parents stick with the established schools that might take up some of the slack. It is in the Indie too and the BBC A lot of emphasis on schools that have been set up in areas with a surplus of places.

What does this mean for the Clifden Road site if the judicial review deems that the Council do have to offer the site to an Academy or Free School? Does that have to be a Free School or Academy already approved by government?

Just doublechecked and the consultation on the use of Clifden said the Council was assuming there would be 100 secondary school places for Year 7s in free schools to start in September 2013 (to meet the need for places of those non-Catholics not able to get into an exclusive Catholic secondary school).

Nick Whitfield did say at the Cabinet Meeting that their forecasts didn't need the 100 places forecast from a Free School. I just don't see how they could back up their assertion that there are enough places on both sides of the river though.

And of course he also said funding for a school in Kingston School was assured too, oh the irony of him sitting on a stage as the person now responsible for finding a way to deliver a school because that is just not true!

So that is two of the risks to their forecasts materialised......

Free Schools opening in 2013 and beyond from the DoE 13/07/2012.

The following schools are on the list based in Richmond:

• Thompson House

• St Mary's Hampton CofE Primary School

The Maharishites write: . . Today the DfE have published the list of approved Free Schools and I am sorry to say that Maharishi School was not on it. They have raised some points that they have asked us to work through with them before reapplying next year. This is a bit of a blow after all the hard work, but there is nothing that we cannot address while keeping the special quality of the Maharishi School. But it does mean that we will not be in a position to open a Maharishi School in Richmond in 2013 . .

Looking at the list and local coverage from places that have got schools it looks as though they were trying to give something to every community. With the two primaries addressing black holes that have already materialised and only been dealt with by bulge classes it looks as though Richmond's school place forecasts are what led to NFS4T losing out. Not all communities are thrilled with their new Free Schools whilst in Slough where the Council came out and said there was a shortage of places all three Free School Proposals have been approved.

Anyway Twickenham should be very grateful to the parents who have worked so hard on behalf of the community to bring about this proposal to try and make sure we have a school that meets local needs, and we should all get behind them to make sure it happens next year.

I should say spread across the country rather than every community..

This is extremely unfair and adding insult to injury. First Clifden Road is given to Catholics and in doing so , the administration and Nick Whitfield had to cook up the figures to show us that new school is not needed. I am sure they must have influenced the Dfe decision.
Catholics should realise the consequences of their demands for the rest of the community. Its a case of lobbying with powers to live and let die.